Collective Bargaining in Academia by hJqV00Q4

VIEWS: 1 PAGES: 17

									Collective Bargaining in Academia –
Analyzing the “Upswing”



   Kathi S. Westcott, Associate Counsel
Past, Present and Future!
 History of Collective Bargaining in Higher
  Education
 Potential Federal and State Law Changes
   NLRA & EFCA
   State Legislation
 Faculty Organizing
   Campaigns
   Collective Bargaining Agreements
 Contingent Faculty
 Graduate Students
 Primer on Management Conduct and Recent
  Cases
History of Collective Bargaining in
Higher Education
 Private sector = federal legal protection
 National Labor Relations Act (NLRA)
   1935 NLRA granted legal recognition of and
    protections to private sector collective
    bargaining.
   1970 the National Labor Relations Board ruled
    that private colleges and universities were
    subject to the NLRA.
 NLRB v. Yeshiva University (1980)
 University of San Francisco (1982)
 Brown University (2004)
History of Collective Bargaining in
Higher Education
 Public sector = state legal protection.
 Over ½ of states have laws enabling faculty
  to engage in collective bargaining.
 More than 90% of faculty in collective
  bargaining units work at public institutions.
 Over 60,000 graduate students are
  represented by labor unions at 26
  institutions – all but one are public.
AAUP Policy
 In 1973 the AAUP issued its first statement on
  collective bargaining
   Revised in 1993 and states: “[T]he Association
    promotes collective bargaining to reinforce the best
    features of higher education.”
 1973 Report on Arbitration of Faculty
  Grievances
 1988 Statement on Academic Government for
  Institutions Engaged in Collective Bargaining
 1991 statement on Dismissal Proceedings in a
  Collective Bargaining Setting Where Arbitration
  Substitutes for a Faculty Hearing
Status of Federal and State Laws
 Employee Free Choice Act (EFCA) &
  Other Amending Proposals
   EFCA Basics
   Graduate Students
 State Legislation
   Wisconsin – lone positive
   “Anti-EFCA” efforts
   Transparency or “Open Government”
    Initiatives
Faculty Organizing - Campaigns
 Economics, Furloughs and Salary Cuts
 Not just about the money!
   Bowling Green State University – serious
    concerns over changes in the role of
    faculty in governance.
   University of Illinois at Chicago – serious
    concerns over crumbling infrastructure
    and movement away from serving
    traditional student base.
Faculty Organizing - Campaigns
 Not just about the money!
   Sinclair Community College – faculty
    salaries are not an issue (recent 6% raise),
    serious concerns of push towards non-
    tenured and part-time appointments as well
    as demands of secrecy in connection with
    faculty committee appointments.
   LSU – contemplating organizing because of
    concerns about academic freedom and lack
    of an independent faculty voice.
Faculty Organizing – Collective
Bargaining Agreements
 More than just the money!
   Oakland University – strike about
    university proposal to drastically increase
    term appointments and concerns about
    undermining faculty due process
    procedures.
   University of Delaware – new contract
    provisions focused on strengthening and
    solidifying academic freedom
    protections.
Faculty Organizing – Collective
Bargaining Agreements
 More than just the money!
   University of Florida – new contract
    provisions established new procedures
    for tenure and promotion process and
    returns much of the operational
    authority and control back to
    departments and colleges.
Contingent Faculty Organizing
 Organizing Campaigns
   2009 – new bargaining units in Massachusetts,
    Michigan and Montana.
   2010 – new bargaining units in Michigan,
    reinvigorated campaigns in Illinois and
    Pennsylvania.
 Collective Bargaining Agreements
   Rhode Island – pay raise, seniority and job
    security.
   New School – expanded leave rights and
    curricular decision making authority.
Graduate Students Organizing
 Organizing Campaigns – Private
   New York University
   University of Chicago
 Organizing Campaigns – Public
   University of California
   Ohio State University
Management Conduct (Permissible
and Impermissible)
 Permissible Conduct
   Respond to questions.
   Provide fact and opinion w/out threat or promise
    of benefit.
   Conduct informational meetings (no captive
    audience).
 Impermissible Conduct
   Threaten, coerce or intimidate.
   Discriminate or retaliate.
   Question employees about intent or solicit
    employees views.
Guidance Based on AAUP Policy
 Bargain in good faith without
  retaliating for collective action.
 Recognize faculty as a professional
  body with the responsibility
  procedurally for judging their peers.
 Support a due process structure that
  values academic freedom and shared
  governance.
Recent Collective Bargaining
Cases
 Fashion Institute of Technology –
  unilateral action by administration
  found to be illegal.
 Fort Hays State University – unilateral
  action by administration, even before
  first contract, found to be illegal.
Closing Thoughts
 Contingent and Full-time
  Collaboration
   University of Northern Iowa.
 For-Profit Schools
   Art Institute of Seattle?
   Kaplan University?
 Focus on non-monetary issues during
  tough economic times!
Legal Issues in Higher Education

 www.aaup.org    Kathi S. Westcott
                    Email:
                     kwestcott@aaup.org
                    Phone: 202-737-5900
                                 x115

								
To top