DOCUMENT RESUME ED 074 918 HE 003 886 AUTHOR Hewitt, Raymond G., Ed. TITLE The Effects of Faculty Collective Bargaining on Higher Education. INSTITUTION New England Board of Higher Education, Wellesley, Mass. PUB LATE Jan 73 NOTE 131p.; Proceedings of a Ccnference of the Now England Board of Higher Education, Boston, Massachusetts, October 1972 EDRS PRICE MF-$0.65 HC-$6.58 DESCRIPTORS *Collctive Bargaining; *Collective Negotiation; *College Faculty; *Higher Education; *Professors; Unions ABSTRACT The philosophy behind and the rationale for faculty unionization is extremely complicated. Its steadily increasing acceptance throughout the nation is significant not only because of . its budgetary effects, but also as a commentary on the methods by which the teaching profession has been managed and as .a force that will have fundamental effects on those interpersonal relationships that are critical to the teaching and learning processes. The papers presented in this volume provide a.variety of insights and viewpoints concerning the effects of faculty collective bargaining on higher education. Major topics covered by the papers are:(1) prospects and implications for faculty collective bargaining; (2) the effect of unionization on the collegial roles of faculty, students and administration; (3) unionization and institutional planning; (4) education and social survival;(5) unionization and:campus governance; and (6)the academic labor market in the 1980,s. (Author/HS) . U.S DEPARTMENTOf HEALTH EDUCATIONOFFICE OF EDV,4 & ViftrA'',1`,rioN RE RE,'P(i OUCEDTHIS LWOWEXACTLYOp(i4,14,)N,7Rit,4H,',: ;:c,,t p fp(1,1 IONSINATINGTHE PERSON S!AIEO ITPOINTSORDO !l'Or, 0,'' thtf`,154iPri',i''. 1)R OPiN CATIONREPRESENT POSITIONorf(c,(4LOR 0;PO'tiil;,,(ii iov lb The Effects of Faculty Collective Bargaining On Higher Education Proceedings ofo Conference Held in Boston, Massachusetts Edited. by Raymc;id G. Hewitt NEW ENGLAND BOARD OF HIGHER EDUCATION 40 GROVE STREET, WELLESLEY, MASSACHUSETTS 02181 Contributors Werner A. Baum, President, Universityof Rhode Island Edward J. Bloustein, President,Rutgers, The State University George W. Bonham, Editorin-Chief,CHANGE Magazine Allen T. Bonnell, President,Community College of Philadelphia Robert K. Carr, Director, Study Project on the AcademicProfession, American Council on Education and Former President, OberlinCollege Allan M. Cartter,, Senior Research Fellow, CarnegieCommission on Higher Education Matthew W. Finkin, -Associate Counsel, American Association ofUniversity Professors Sanford H. Kadish, Professor of Law, University of California,Berkeley Bennett D. Katz, Senator, State of Maine and Chairman, NewEngland Board of Higher Education Israel Kugler, Deputy President, Professional Staff Congress-CityUniversity of New York, Local #2334 Kenneth M. MacKenzie, Vice Chancellor for Personnel andEmployee Relations, State University of New York Thomas J. Mooney, Member of the Board and FormerVice President, U.S. National Student Association Robert F. Pickard, Member, Rhode Island Board of Regentsfor Education Charles J. Ping, Provost,Central Michigan University Paul J. Reiss, Academic VicePresident, Fordham University Charles R, Sropson, Director, Higher Education Division,National Education Association Donald E. Walters, Deputy Director, Massachusetts State Coflew System ii Foreword Itwas John Locke who gave this nation its basic rationale for the banding together of men to protect their property and to assure their representation in the governance of both that property and its protection. There would seem to be a direct relationship between this nation's act of union and the unionization of professional societies. But in this particular community, the community of higher education, the definition of property is much less easy to come by than in 1765. The philosophy behind and the rationalefor faculty unionizationis extremely complicated; as this volume shows. Its steadily increasing acceptance throughout the nation and this regionis significant nut only because of its 'budgetary effects, but alsoand in my opinion, more importantly as a commentary on the methods by which we have managed our profession and as a force which will have fundamental effects upon those interpersonal relationships which are so absolutely critical to the teaching and learning processes. Certainly the unionization of faculties touches upon far more than the items agreed upon in the typical contract. The papers presentedinthis volume provide a variety of insights and viewpoints concerning the effects of faculty collective bargaining on higher education. They were originally prepared for a conference held by this Board in October 1972 to provide a forum for discussion of this trend which may have increasing impact upon the future profile of postsecondary education in this nation. Alan D. Ferguson Executive Director New England Beard of Higher Education January 1973 iii Contents Contributors ii Foreword iii INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY Donald E. Walters 1 WELCOMING REMARKS Bennett D. Katz 5 FACULTY COLLECTIVE BARGAINING PROSPECTS AND IMPLICATIONS Sanford H. Kadish 7 PANEL: EFFECT OF UNIONIZATION ON THE COLLEGIAL ROLES OF FACULTY, STUDENTS AND ADMINISTRATION A President's Experiences Werner A. Baum 18 A Faculty Perspective Matthew W. Finkin 24 The Role of Students Thomas J. Mooney 31 Collegiality or Unionization: The Fordham Election Paul J. Reiss 37 THE TROUBLED PROFESSOR Robert K. Carr 45 PANEL: UNIONIZATION AND INSTITUTIONAL PLANNING Who Plans? Who Must Be Consulted? Kenneth M. MacKenzie 56 Unionization: Stimulant or Deterrent to Planning? Charles J. Ping 62 New Channels of Communication Charles R. Simpson 72 EDUCATION AND SOCIAL SURVIVAL George W. Bonham 83 PANEL: UNIONIZATION AND CAMPUSGOVERNANCE A New Relationship Israel Kugler 92 A Tripartite System Allen T. Bonnell 95 The Rhode Island Experience Robert F. Pickard 103 A Chamber of Horrors? Edward J. Bloustein 110 THE ACADEMIC LABOR MARKET IN THE1980s Allan M. Cartter 117 vi Introduction all d Summary Donald E. Walter in February 1972, the New England Board of Higher Education looked around the region and noted that, essentially, only in Massachusetts had the faculties at four-year institutions indicated any significant interest in unioni2a- tion and collective bargaining. There was, of course, a small private institutionin Rhode Island, Bryant College, where a contract had already been negotiated. But at that time there were only eight otherinstitutions in New England where the taculty had exhibited such interest. All eight happened to be in Massachusetts,all were public, and one, Southeastern MassachusettsUniversity, had indeed already negotiated a contract. Across the country, particularly in the Northeast and the Midwest,however, the Board saw that there was a great deal stirring.There were then about 30-35 four-year institutions whose faculties had already elected a collective bargaining agent. There were alsoover 100 two-year institutions where asimilar phenomenon had taken place. And at the four-year level, about 18 institutions had already negotiated contracts. At that time, of course, it was still difficult to read anything like trends in this country with respect to collective targaining at the collegiate level. But to the Board, one thing was certainly clear: This phenomenon and the registered interest of faculty in this matter were something that could not and really ought not be ignored. It deserved special attention. Indeed, the Board felt it deserved attention at the level of asking questions of a more philosophical or even ideological nature. Thus, this conference wasconceived. Eight months later, in October when the conference was held, the number of institutions in New England where faculties had elected an agent had grown from 9 to 14. Since February, four more had elected agents in Rhode Island and one more had in Massachusetts. Nationally,the number of four-year institutions with bargaining agents had grown from 30-35 to 45-48. It is also important to note that, in terms of tbi7 activity around the country, there have also been many elections in which faculties have said no to the possibility of union representa- tion. Most notably that happened recently at Michigan State*University, It has happened also in Ohio and Tennessee. And there, are pending two very major 1 elections which willdetermine whether or not thenames of two more institutions of significant size andimportance the University of Hawaii and Temple University will be added to the list of thosewhose faculties have organized. The timeliness of both thesubject and this conferencewere underscored, therefore, by the events of the interveningmonths. Even more than last February, the need to come together in October to discuss and debate theissues was imperative. Duringthe day and a half of theconference, we were told by the distinguished panelists that therewas good news and that there was badnews, but there was no unanimity about the effects and the impacts of unionizationon campuses. One conferee remarked that he thought thatthe use and value of the conference was that it had beena kind of sensitivity session. If the conference did, indeed, serve to expandour consciousness and Awareness of the implications of collective bargaining in higher education, it served its purpose and hadsome value. The effect of collective bargainingon' collegiality was one of the issues where a typical split in views occurred. Mr. Kadish opened the conferenceby saying that at those institutions where the roots for shared governanceare