Page Six
THE MICHIGAN DAILY
Thursday, March 16, 102
Page Six THE MICHIGAN DAILY Thursday, Mdrch 16, 1 ~72
'G
TS and
il :
.x'
0
S
B
LITIES
E
PAID SUPPLLI
ORT continued
Continued from Page 5
University contract colleges for larly is this
the other one. staff compe
(k) According to other figures So much
prepared by MAHE, at the CUNY ule. From
Senior Colleges a professor mak- admistrati
ing ,$20,000 on Oct. 1, 1968 made mittee men
$27,525 on Oct. 1, 1971, for a 37.6 following i
percent increase over four years. ways in wh
An associate professor making (a) First,
$16,000 in 1968 made $22,500 in ized proced
1971 for a 40.6 percent increase, v i e w i n g
An assistant professor making though a ro
$12,250 in 1968 made $17,830 in tern can be
1971 for a 45.6 percent increase. cess by whic
Without promotion an instructor For exampl
making $11,200 in 1968 would eral years n
have made $15,350 in 1971 for a sity has eve
37.1 percent increase. At the top appropriate
levels in each rank, professors' of increase
compensation rose from $26,000 to between uni
$31,275 in that three-year period of minor ex
(20.3 percent), associate profes- ed recaptur
sors' from $21,000 to $25,500 (21. red, apart f
4 percent), assistant professors' the Legisla
from $17,000 to $20,830 (22 per- cation decis
cent), and instructors' from $13,- exclusivelyc
900 to $17,150 (23.4 percent). The tional doll
lowest levels in the salary scale mental doll
increased from $18,000 to $22,500 shifts in t
(25 percent) for professors, from structure.
$14,000 to $17,830 for associate (b) The d
professors (27.4 percent), from administrati
$11,000 to $14,830 for assistant Vice of the
professors (34.8 percent), and Academic A
from $10,050 to $12,700 for in- four acadenm
structors (26.4 percent), order of sta
For faculty on the CUNY staff ity: () sal
in both years, 1969-70 and 1970- teaching st
71, average compensation for pro- non-teachin
fessors in the CUNY Graduate Di-. non-salary.
vision went up 8.6 percent to one year; wh
$33,700, for associate professors portive staf
11.3 percent to $25,300, for assist- Ond place a
ant professors 14.1 percent to $19,- the deans, t
700. At CUNY City College, on der of priori
the same comparison, average past several
compensation for professors went overall aver
up 11.4 percent to $32.100, for as- schools and
sociate professors 14.0 percent to true, the qu
$25,200, assistant professors 19.7 has the fac
percent to $19,200, and instruc- declined?
tors 17.6 percent to $15,000. (c) Funds
Averages and increases for fac- sponse to a
ulty on staff in both years at the several level
other seven CUNY senior colleges compensatio:
reporting were of a similar char- Allocation i
acter. Of these the lowest figures four levels:
were, for professors, a 6.3 percent (i) The G
increase at Hunter ($32,200) and islature. Vi
an average $30,400 at Richmond; edgeable obs
for associate professors a 7 per- current legi
cent increase at Hunter $24,800) system has
and an average $23,400 at John list of man
Jay; for assistant professors a 9 increasing la
percent increase at Hunter ($19,- own budget.
700) and an average $17,600 at of legislated
John Jay; for instructors a 4.3 for discretio
percent increase 'at Queens ($15,- central adm
100) and an average $15,000 at extremely o
City College. (John Jay College is years.
a recent addition to the CUWY (i) Exter
system.) Overall average increases police, and
for the nine colleges reporting primary am
indicates a tendency to decrease placed upon
differentials between ranks: a 9.3 Rates have
percent increase foil professors, nually over
11.5 percent for associate profes- seriously eat
sors, 13.6 percent for assistant cremental d
professors, and 10.5 percent for (iii) The
,instructorsThe adminis
instrutors.both the de~
2. The Allocation Process: Prob- in the vari
lems and Possibilities leges will pl
Why has the faculty salary situ- cation of
ation declined? First and obvious- One-year re
ly, the rate of growth in appro- the various
priations has slowed. But the pro- (Plans are in
cess of allocating the funds that three to fi
are available to the University ag- soon.) Thes
gravates the problem in two ways: rent account
(i) The method of allocating portive staf
funds is such that external de- Each unit is
mands and internal negotiated tration that
agreements with non - academic go to salarie
staff eat up funds thought of as sitions or1
available for increases, thus effec- The units ar
tively leaving faculty salaries in a increase req
residual position. (ii) The struc- President Sm
ture of faculty involvement in cause it is kn
budgetary affairs appears to have range betwe'
left faculty members at a disad- percent, per
vantage where pressures are be- is the rang
ing exerted, particularly those claims it has
whose status is already relatively for.
low, The principal reasons sug- (iv The C
gest themselves through an ex- Ultimately th
amination of the process by which the Office o
funds are allocated. . for Academi
The chronological order of the the administ.
budget making process is general- Legislature w
ly as follows: erage increas
(I) In mid-August, adminis- tion for allt
trators of the various units of the year it wen
University submit proposed bud- 6.5 percentf
gets for their operations in the more could
fiscal year beginning the follow- the Governo
ing July 1. These requests are Emphasis on
filed with the Office of Academic fits has come
'Affairs, ance from
(ii) In September or October the Faculty
the Committee on Budget Admin- mendations
istration (a Regental committee which .reque
presided over by the Vice Presi-: ward total
dent for Academic Affairs; two benefits and
SACUA members meet with the of disability
Committee) constructs a "pro- dency was at
posed budget request," which it that such ite
submits to the Regents for appro- ing granted
val and forwarding to the Bureau ployees throu
of the Budget, in the Executive ments during
office in Lansing. This document Some of t
takes into account the August re- eliminated a
quests from the individual units. level because
(iii) Later in the fall there are priority on t
Bureau hearings, at which repre- the centrala
sentatives of the University ap- What is the
pear in support of the Univer- Legislature. is
sity's budget request, or a political
(iv) The Governor's bill is de- the Universit
livered to the Legislature in mid- says the Vice
January. It constitutes the first of what the
public notice of his proposed bud- gards to be re
get. his v iew, it1
(v) In hearings before the Sen- do any signif
ate Finance and House Appropri- long-range p.
ations Committees the University's four years gi
representatives argue for the Uni- dependence o
versity's position. has appeared
true as to faculty and
ensation.
for the general sched-
our discussions with
Ave officers, and com-
ibers we gained the
npressions about the
ich the process works:
there is no standard-
ure for setting and re-
budgetary priorities,
ughly consistent pat-
discerned in the pro-
ch funds are allocated.
e, over the past sev-
o unit of the Univer-
r gone down in funds
sure regular feedback to SACUA
or Senate Assembly or to involve
faculty generally in setting prior-
ities for use of University funds.
The recently appointed Resource
Allocation Commission is charged
with considering such matters.
(d) The only direct faculty in-
put in developing the academic
budget is through the Vice Presi-
dent's advisory committee, which
by all reports has had a minor
role, though other faculty input
is assumed to come through the
deans. This year the administra-
tion considered that a 10 percent
compensation increase for facul-3
d, though the degree ty could not be managed. There-
is markedly different fore it presented Lansing with the
ts. With only a couple 6.5 percent figure. According to
ceptions, no centraliz- administration sources., the Eco-
e of funds has occur- nomic Status of the Faculty Com-
rom cuts imposed by mittee has been viewed only as an
ture. Ordinarily allo- information gathering group. If
ions are made almost faculty believe that it should do
on the basis of addi- more, these sources indicate, then
ars available (incre- Senate Assembly should instruct
tars") rather than by it accordingly and the University's
;he overall budgetary budgeting and allocation struc-
ture should be revised to accom-
deans and the central modate its input. The same would
on - chiefly the of- be true of the Resources Alloca-
Vice President for tion Commission or of any other
ffairs - work with organ of faculty governance,
,ic budgetary areas, in (e) Within the University bud-
ndard operating prior- get faculty could expect to exert
ary, (ii) additions to its greatest influence in decisions
aff, (iii) additions to about the General Fund. At this
g supportive staff, (iv) point, knowledge of a few figures
With the exception of is required. On the Ann Arbor
ien "additions to sup- campus the General Fund (GF)
f" was put into sec- made up $115,367,519 of the total
with full approval of revenues and working capital of
his has been the or- $261,312,373 in 1970-71. Of the GF
ties followed over the only $69,294,030 came from State
years, with respect to appropriations; $63,938,298 was
age allocations for the budgeted for Departmental In-
colleges. If this is struction and Research. All other
estion remains: Why funds' i.e. the Designated Fund,
culty salary situation the Expendable Restricted Fund,
the Auxiliary Activities Fund,
are distributed in re- and the rest of the GF) derived
variety of pressures at from student fees ($32,871,489),
s Funds for faculty research grants, and other sourc-
}!
.
I
n
l
t
I
i
.!
(
.
1
;I
i
i
t,
{
a collective bargaining agent. ty can exert strong pressures to fying assertions must be made..
Many states, however, do not yet derive funds for raises from the First, although there are several!
have explicit provisions covering non-academic budget or from re- examples of faculty unions and
higher education. States where the vision of budgetary priorlties, it other less formalized collective;
law has been most comprehensive would therefore appear that much bargaining arrangements, pri-
and definite have seen the greatest of these funds would come from marily in metropolitan areas of
amount of unionization over thb trade-off arrangements within the Northeast, none has operated
past two years. Of 130 colleges the academic budget. long enough to provide definitive
and universities where faculties 2. Models for Dispute Settle- evidence for or against adoption
are known to have selected agents, ment of the model. Furthermore, none
as of July 1971, 39 were in New Three approaches to decision- of the institutions now actively
York, 29 in Michigan, 14 in both making have been used in dispute involved in collective bargaining
New Jersey and Wisconsin, 11 in settlement (a) p e r s u a s i o n, is truly comparable to the Uni-
Illmoi, and 10 in Massachusetts. through informal arrangements, versity of Michigan.
(All campuses of the City Univer- (b) institutionally established pro- As of August, 1971, the national
sity of New York are counted as cedures using neutral third par- situation was as follows:
one, as is true of the State Uni- ties, and (c) coercion, including (a) City University of New
versity of New York, the Chicago sanctions and strikes. York was the first institution of
City Colleges, and the Nebraska (a) The persuasion approach is higher education beyond the com-!
and New Jersey state college sys- now available and could be im- munity college level to negotiate
tems.) proved, as will be shown. a contract with faculty. This two-
(c) Within two years after a (b) For individual faculty mem- year contract became effective
1965 Michigan law (Amended 1bers the University has recently September, 1969. A second wasI
Michigan Employment Relations established a grievance procedure f negotiated in 1971. Bargaining for
Act (1947) Mich. Laws Ann. §423. with the formation of the Senate CUNY faculty was a National Ed-
208 (1965).] authorized public em- I Advisory Review Committee. An ucation Association (NEA) affili-'
ployees, including teachers, to or- ombudsman concept may be a ated organization, the Legislative
ganize for collective bargaining, needed supplement. For issues af- Conference, which had been inde- '
over three-fourths of the state's fecting the faculty as a whole, pendent for some twenty years. ,
then 590 school districts had re- other third-party procedures could The bargaining team was able to I
cognized unions. By February of be utilized for mediation, fact- negotiate substantial financial in-
1971, all but 15 had organized. A finding, or arbitration: creases without reduction of staff;
1968 study by Charles Rehmus (i> AAUP has offered ad hoc or program. Rank and seniority'
and Evan Wilner indicated that mediation services on some cam- are the bases for an incrementj
within the first two years pay in- puses. Under Michigan law me- schedule. While merit increases
creases averaging 10-20 percent diation services are available, up- are possible outside the negotiateda
higher than what teachers would on request of either party, to re- contract, they are rarely extended.
otherwise have received apparent- solve disputes relating to a col- Other factors such as tenure and1
ly resulted. It is too early to de- ! lective bargaining* agreement. promotion procedures, work load!
termine what other factors might i[Mich. Camp. Laws Ann. §§423. and working conditions, andI
also have played a role in this 207, 423.25 (1967).] fringe benefits were also negotiat-I
trend and whether the trend will (ii) In contract disputes fact- ed. (See see. I.A.1 for results in
continue. I Charles M. Rehmus finders are also used under Michi- average compensation.)
and Evan Wilner, The Economic gan law to make recommenda- (b) Rutgers, St. John's, and
Results of Teacher - Bargaining: tions, with a provision that if one Southeastern Massachusetts all,
Michigan's First Two Years (Ann party refuses to follow the recom- negotiated contracts' with faculty
Arbor: University of Michigan. In- mendations the other party may bargaining representatives during
stitute of Labor and Industrial make them public as a means of the fall, 1970. At Rutgers and St.1
Relations, 1968).J bringing about a voluntary agree- John's, faculties are represented;
(d) As of August, 1971 26 of ment. (Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. by the American Association of
Michigan's 29 two-year public col- §423.25 (1967).] University Professors (AAUP!
leges had designated collective (iii) Binding arbitration entered jointly with a local faculty asso-I
bargaining agents. (Delta, North into voluntarily is sometimes ad- ciation at St. John's), at South-I
Central Michigan, and Northwest- vocated as a method of effect- eastern Massachusetts by thet
ern Michigan had not.) Of these, ing agreements without strikes. American Federation of Teachersr
th MFT (th Am rir F~d~r. Sin 1968 bindinp britntin of (AFT I TPrh .AAinitinlb hn
(h) Fear of losses in faculty; pay agency fees is sufficient
status and power through organ- ground for discharge of tenured
izing for adversary bargaining is teacllers at the K-12 level.
a major concern of many faculty (b) Despite the ordinary dif-
members throughout the country. ference in meaning between "pro-
The following statement by Dr. fessional association" (AAUP,
Lyle H. Lanier, Executive Vice NEA) and "trade union (AFT), O
President and Provost, University this difference practically vanish-
of 'Illinois, expresses a feeling es when an agency is legally de-
shared by many 'faculty members signated as the exclusive bargain-
as well as administrators: ing agency. In this context net-
The concept of 'participatory ther Michigan law nor the Michi-
democracy' in the determination gan Employment Relations Com-
of educational policies and in- mission recognizes any differ-
creasingly in administrative de- ences. Each is treated, in spe-
cision-making is incompatible cific terms, as a "labor organiza-
with collective bargaining con- tion." [Brown 1970 art., pp. 287
ducted between two mutually- ff.; cf. Mich. Stat. Ann. §17.454(2)
e x c 1 u s-i v e and independent (g) (1968); and National Labor
groups. - Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. §152(5)
(MSU Faculty Affairs Committee, (1964).] AAUP has officially de-
"An Impartial Review of Collec- nied the appropriateness to higher
tive Bargaining by University education of the exclusivity prin-
Faculties," March 9, 1971.) ciple. Nevertheless, if AAUP were
To offset this possible negative accepted as the bargaining agency
outcome some contracts have had for the University of Michigan it
"no strike" provisions and faculty would have to function as the exe-
unions, with the exception of those clusive agent, as would any affili-
in some community colleges and ates of NEA or AFT.
the University of Wisconsin's (c) Who could be included in
Teaching Assistants Association, the bargaining unit? The Michigan
have expressed reluctance to con- Supreme Court has directed
sider striking as a possible bar- MERC to use what amounts to an
gaining tactic, Thus far adversary ad hoc approach, one required to
relationships with university ad- consider the special circumstances
ministrators have been low key prevailing in each institution.
in most situations. SUNY negotia- Therefore it is as yet ' unclear
tions, for instance, will be coon- whethel non-academic employees
dinated primarily through'the Ex- or administrators could be includ- '
ecutive Office of the Governor. ed at the University of Michigan.
The faculty organization there be- I It is unlikely that a college or
lieves that this will help to pre- Iprofessional school would qualify
serve the feeling of community by itself. Recently MERC denied
among administrators, faculty, the petition of the University Col-
and students with respect to aca- lege at Michigan State University
demic affairs. for acceptance as a bargaining
(Li Legal and administrative unit. University College is a two-
provision still cast an uncertain year college in which all MSU
light on the overall bargaining Freshmen and Sophomores a r e
situation within higher education. required to enroll.
To gain clarity, in mid-1971
AAUP petitioned the NLRB to is- (d) Any academic unit within
sue general rules in four areas: (I) the bargaining unit is entitled to
defining "supervisors," (ii) deter- petition MERC for exclusion. The
mining which organizations are Wayne State University Medical
appropriate bargaining units (eg School's claim to exclusion had
%1. 1 A1A U CU Uy
)n are no exception.
s chiefly decided at
overnor and the Leg-
rtually every knowl-
erver admits that the
slative appropriation
problems in it. On the
y is the University's
ack of control over its
The relative amount
increments available
nary purposes to the
ministration has been
w over the past four
nal Demands. Utility,
fire costs have beenI
ong external demands
the available funds.
gone up almost an-I
the past four years,t
ing into the few in-
ollars appropriated.
Schools and Colleges.
stration assumes that
pans and the faculties
ous schools and col-
ay a role in the allo-
incremental dollars.
quests are made by
'units each August.
the works to include
ive year projections
e requests cover cur-
t, teaching staff, sup-
f, and maintenance.
told by the adminis-
certain amounts will
s and not to new po-
tion-academic items.
e not asked for salary
uests anymore, Vice
With has explained, be-
lown that these would
en 9 percent and 14
haps higher, and this
e the administration!
es. Since 1964-65 the GF has risen
from $60.1 to $115.1 million while
State appropriations have risen
from $44.1 to only $69.3 million -
a decline from 73.3 percent of the
total to 60.6 percent. The rest of
the GF c me from student fees,
indirect 6ost recovery ($10,831,-
000, mostly from the federal gov-
ernment), other revenue ($2,370,-
000: unrestricted gifts, etc.), and
working capital addition ($229,-
562). This year a 73.8 percent ap-
propriation from the State would
have brought $84,564,411, over $15
million more than received. It may
be doubted that faculty can help
bring further pressures to bear or
the Legislature, but the Legisla-
ture will have to be reached some-
how if the erosion is to be stopped
This factor can scarcely be over-
estimated.
Meanwhile, at what points could
UM faculty actually affect bud-
geting and allocation of funds?
(i) First, the faculty could influ-
ence the overall budget by par-
ticipating in a review of all pro-
posed new expansions, grants, andI
programs. The task would be to;
join the administration in deter-s
mining not only their desirability
but also whether there are un-
necessary or unacceptable costs
tied to their approval, notably inI
overhead and maintenance, and
whether current operations will
have to suffer. iii) Second, within
the General Fund, faculty and
administration working togetherI
could take the bold step of evalu-
ating which programs should con-
tinue and which should be phasedj
I
4
t
f
i
I
1
I
I
I
1
l
i
,
;
out or curtailed. (iii) Thir
faculty could accept alterati
productivity arrangements
faculty teaching relatively
d, the
ons in
(fewer
more
ie r' ii e Hme ican e era-l lice lyoo Uoinagn ar ruaion of 1 L/ . Iin eacn case,ini ai ar-s....." . u..--- --.-
tion of Teacher's Michigan affil- grievances, if agreed upon by both gaining obtained salary increases. all-university committees, senates, not yet been decided as of Sep-
iate, connected with AFL-CIO) parties, has already been provided At St. John's this amounted to a or other faculty bodies), (iii) de- iembei, 1971. Hoever a ladmark
had agreements with 4, the MEA in collective bargaining agree- total 21 per cent across-the-board termining the status of teaching lations Board (NLRB) handed
(the National Education Associa- ments with three unions repre- increase during the first two-year fellows and research associates' down on September 14 171 not
tion's affiliate) with 16, and non- senting non-academic employees contract period. The Rutgers con- and (iv) determining the status on Stember 14, 17no
affiliated locals with 6. Historical- at the University of Michigan. Al- tract, while based primarily on of part-time teachers. No rul- only authorized colletive bar-
ly these institutions have had most all collective agreements rank and seniority made definite ings have yet been made.
close ties with the secondary contain this feature. However, proviaion for merit increases ' Thus far, there does not appear allowed exclusion of the law fac-
schools, both in administrative these contracts do not provide for ($500,000 additional money being 'to be any clear eviaence that fac- u f he brainin it.
practice and in recruitment of binding arbitration as the last set aside for this). Southeastern ulty participation in university though this decision initially at-
teaching staff. It is altogether step in bargaining. For resolution Massachusetts sought rather to ; governance has lost ground. d
likely that the situation of many of impasses at the bargaining ta- achieve better distribution of Among several institutional rep- i9 un o infuence ns re-
of the two-year colleges, particu- ble, the last recourse for these funds than to obtain more money S resentatives polled recently by an garding public institutions as well.
larly through faculty demands for unions is to strike. By mutual from the state. No faculty strikes I MSU committee, all felt that col- Some experts believe the ruling
professional academic status and agreement, binding arbitration have taken place in any of the ' lective bargaining had had a sig- sl
for rights of participation in aca- could be resorted' to where formal above institutions. i nificantly positive effect on fac- ladtis fagentatf
demic governance, will more near- collective bargaining is not pre- (c) In addition to these uni- ulty participation in university af- faculties. The fact remains that at
ly approach that of the four-year sent. Under collective bargaining versities, by the end of 1970 the fairs. Polled were: St. John's, ulty is currently permitted to elect
institutions as these colleges are this method is not available unless State University of New York S o u t h e a s t e r n Massa-
withdrawn from control of local I provided for in the bargaining (SUNY), the Nebraska State Col- chusetts, Rutgers, CUNY (a rela- exclusion.
school boards and are integrated agreement. ' lege system, and five New Jersey tively guarded statement), and (e) The size and make-up of
into a district or statewide sys- (c) Coercion would include cen- state colleges had organized with Central Michigan. In none of these the bargaining unit can be a cru-
tem. The degree to which the con- sure by the faculty or by an ex- NEA and local affiliates as bar- E places, however, does participa- cial factor -as to whether a fac-
tinued practice of collective bar- ternal association such as the gaining agents: contracts were tion appear to have been as exten- ulty will accept collective bar-
gaining will serve or hamper this AAUP, publicizing disputes, boy- negotiated in 1971. Adelphi Col- . sive as at the University of Mich- gaining and as to whether any
development has yet to be tested. cotting, refusing to perform extra- loge (N.Y.), Belleville Area Col- , igan. particular unit will gain adminis-
However, one recent study of 11 curricular duties, or otherwise lege (Ill.>, Brooklyn Center of Belief in the polarizing effect of trative or public recognition.
representative community colleges withholding services. Lacking ac- Long Island, Polytechnic Institute I bargaining and a corresponding Would an appropriate bargaining
in Michigan indicates that col- tion by such means, a strike tech- of Brooklyn, and New York Insti- ( diminution of the academic com- unit comprise all members of the
lective bargaining at the commun- nique might be used. However, tute of Technology have filed pe- munity persists, especially in view Faculty Senate? At the Univer-
ity college level has tended to limits to the effectiveness of using titions to be represented by AAUP of analogies drawn from the in- sity of Michigan the Faculty Sen-
widen rather than narrow the faculty strikes or sanctions may while Boston State College, Bry- dustrial relations sector. This be- ate is a body of 2,796 people
salary differentials among fac- be expected: ant College (R.I.), and Massa- lief has led to consensus following which now includes 171 non-
ulty ranks. (Christine Gram, "Im- (i) In the first place, there is a chusetts College of Art will be discussion and study at such in- teaching faculty (July 22, 1971).
pact of Collective Bargaining on very real possibility that the leg- represented by AFT. Hawaii, stitutions as the University of Sixty-nine Dearborn faculty, 60
Faculty Salary Structures in islature could not be reached by Fordham, Lawrence Tech., and Minnesota that unionization is un- Flint faculty, and 47 "U.S. mail-
Michigan Community Colleges," such methods. Even where short- Manhattan College are institu- desirable. ing" faculty (including Professors
Emerti members on leave, and
Unpublished Doctoral Disserta- term gains would be attained, over tions of higher education outside 4. Public Collective Bargaining
tion, Department of Higher Edu- the long run these could easily be of Michigan at which organiza- in Michigan staff at Veterans or Wayne Coun-
cation, 1971). wiped out by public and legisla- tions are known to be circulating (a) Under Michigan law, exclu- t ty hospitals) are figured within
(e) So few four-year colleges tive reaction, producing counter- cards among faculty to obtain- sive representation is granted a the o a otal Neither teach-
and universities have had even a sanctions that faculty would con- their permission to be represented. bargaining agent once a majoritymmg fellows nor instructors are
brief experience with collective sider detrimental to the good At the University of Rhode Is- of persons voting (not the ma- nembers. The supposition that
bargaining that they provide little health and professional excellence land a faculty study committee jority of bargaining unit mm- the Faculty Senate membership
data relevant to the University of of the University. For example, has recommended organizing for bers) have approved that agent. would comprise the bargaining
Michigan. Nevertheless enough is the legislature could specify work collective bargaining. 'The procedure for obtaining col- unit raises some interesting prob-
known about collective bargaining loads or curtail non-salary allo- (d At New York University, lective bargaining in a Michigan lems. Could all present Senate
generally to warrant several in- cations, a private institution, faculty have public institution is as follows: members be bargained for ade-
ferences: (ii) Profit and loss brought voted to organize under the AAUP' (i) An employee organization quately by a single bargaining
()i Early gains are sometimes about by strikes in the university but have been denied permission presents to the employer petitions agent? Are there members of the
relatively large, as at CUNY. The setting cannot be measured in or- ; to file with the State Labor Re- signed by at least 30 percent of University family who might pro-
continuation of such a rate of in- dinary market terms. The em- lations Board, since NYU is not the employees in a given employee perly be included within a bar-
crease, however, would seem im- ployer likely would not be harmed a sub-unit of the state govern- unit. gaining unit but who are now ex-
probable. The tendency in indus- economically by a strike. On the ( ment. The National Labor Rela- (ii The bargaining unit must cluded from the Faculty Senate?
try where collective bargaining other hand, students, faculty, and tions Board would have jurisdic- then be defined, either by consent In some institutions non-faculty
has been newly introduced has society could be seriously harm- tion in this case, according to of the administration and em. categories have constituted a eon-
been for average compensation to ed, as could the standing and pro- state officials. This view accords ployes representatives or, where iderable portion of the bargain-
rise sharply at first and then to ductivity of the institution, with a decision of that board on such agreement is not reached or ing unit agreed upon. It is pos-
level off within a few years' time. (iii) Legal and administrative June 12, 1970 asserting its statu- not sought, by determination of sible for a would-be agent to delay
Thereafter raises, though admit- interpretations within the State tory jurisdiction to determine bar- the Michigan Employment Rela- determining the make-up of the
tedly protected by the bargaining of Michigan and elsewhere have gaining representatives for the tions Commission (MERC). unit to be requested until the cards
process, are similar to general vewed faculty collective bargain- employees of Cornell University,' (iii) A bargaining agent is then are in. Presence of non-faculty
trends in the economy. Over the ing almost exclusively on the in- as a private university whose op- 1'chosen, either by voluntary re- employees could become a decid-
past seventy years of collective dustrial relations model. Thus far, erations have a substantial effect cognition by the employer of the ing factor.
bargaining in industry the slice of for example, there has been no on commerce. agent's claim to represent a ma- What pattern would best serve
corporate income going for wages provision under Michigan law (e) In California, the faculty jority of the employees in the unit the basic interests of faculty and
(65-70 percent) has not changed. whereby public employees in association for all state collegesI or by election. At least 30 percent of the University? This question
What has happened, according to higher education and those in ACSCP, has gradually become of the employees must have sign- is difficult to answer. Certainly
UM Law Dean Theodore St An- elementary or secondary educa- more aggressive and, in 1970, it ed authorization cards before the health and autonony of the
toine, a labor-industrial relations tion are distinguished in any way merged with AFT to form United MERC can be petitioned for an e n t i r e University community
expert, is that increases in rates or whereby these are distinguished Professors of California. AFT in- election. Only one other choice- greatly depend upon the exercise
of pay have been offset by pro- from other laboring groups. fluence is strong in this organiz- "no union"-is required on the of autonomgos corporate respon-
ductivity increase and reductions Moreover, the traditional prohi- ation, which has not yet negotiat- ballot, though other organizations sibility among its faculty.'he fac-
in the number of employees. bition of strikes by public em- ed a contract. obtaining signed cards from at ulty sh'ould also be in a position
(ii) Across-the-board percent- ployees was retained in Michigan's (f) Thus far, there is no collec- least 10 per cent of the employees to lead and to cooperate with oth-
age increases have been the usual 1965 Public Employment Relations tive bargaining among regular in the bargaining unit may also be er members of that community to-
pattern in the four-year institu- Act, though it appears to have faculties at any of the Big Ten included on the ballot. The elec- ward achievement of its proper
tions so far. Such gains are some- been weakened by relaxation of universities, though teaching fel- tion is held only after MERC goals. Definite evidence does not
what misleading, since where sal- some related sanctions. The pro- lows have organized at Wisconsin. has certified that the proposed yet exist as to whether or not in-
ary differentials are already great hibition has not proved effective (g) In most cases where local bargaining unit is appropriate. volvement with non-faculty in a
percentage increases would lessen against public school employees. organizations were selected to rep- (iv) A run-off election may be bargaining unit would necessarily
the relative status of those already The same is likely to be true at resent the faculty, these have held is no majority of those vot- hamper the faculty's exercise of
receiving the lower salaries. the university level, despite Michi- been reinforced by one of the I ing is reached. If no majority of such responsibilities.
(iii) Hard data on the effect of gan law's unusual precision in de- national organizations. However, I those voting in the second elec- 5. Co 11e t i v e Bargaining in
public collective bargaining within fining when strikes may be said contracts already in effect appear tion is obtained a further elec- Michigan Colleges and Unversi-
a tight financial situation, as at to occur. Both injunctions and to reflect institutional unique- tion may be held only after one ties
present, are difficult to come by. sanctions will be difficult for the ness even though the bargaining year has elapsed. In Michigan only 2 of the 13
Available data seem to suggest state to apply in many types of agency is a national organization (v) The next step is the nego- four-year institutions have or-
that gains in employee compen- cases. Since faculty collective bar- such as NEA, AFT, or, AAUP. This tiating of an agreement between ganized thus far, Central Mi i-
sation tend not to rise above cost- gaining is still new, possible limi- fact does not, of course, imply the nployer and the bargaining gan University (MEA) and Oak-
of-living increases and tend to be tations on effectiveness deriving that the choice of agent has no agent, Ratification of this or any land University (AAUP). Cen-
traded off either for increased em- from reference to the industrial bearing on aims or procedures. ( subsequent agreement by the tral Michigan negotiated its sec-
1/
been trying to shoot courses and more students). Un-
less General Fund revenues rise
entral Administration. considerably, these would appear,
he control rests within to be the only ways by which a
f the Vice President substantial overhauling of facul-
c Affairs. Last year ty salary policy could be achieved,3
ration's request to the short of collective bargaining.
was for 10 percent av- Our recommendations includej
se in total compensa- means of effecting such changes,
University staff. This beginning with a stronger man-
t to Lansing with a date to the Economic Status of the
figure, assuming that Faculty Committee. But first it is
not be secured once important to consider what the
r's bill had appeared. collective bargaining option could
tax-free staff bone- offer.
, in part, under guid- B. Collective Bargaining
Economic Status of 1. Collective Bargaining in Pub-
Committee recom- lic Employment
since the mid-1960's, (a) Collective bargaining inG
ested movement . to- private employment has been re-
payment of health peatedly endorsed by Congress,
steady improvement and the state legislatures since the
insurance. This ten- Railway Labor Act of 1926, the
ugmented by the fact Norris-LaGuardia Act of 1932, and
ems were already be- the National Labor Relations Act
non-academic em- of 1935 (the Wagner Act). Only
ugh negotiated agree- since 1965 have the state legisla-
this period. tunes authorized collective bar-
he unit requests are I gaining in public employment.1
t the Administrative Thereafter public school teachers
they are of too low in many parts of the country over-
the unit's list or on came their traditional reluctance
administration's list. .to adopt an "unprofessional" em-
en presented to the ployee relation. While in the per-:
not a blue sky total iod 1950-1955 there were only 77{
judgment as to what public school teacher strikes na-
ty can expect to get, f tionwide and from 1956 to 1965
President, but a sum only 30, there were 30 in 1966
administration re- alone. According to the Division of'
easonable requests. In Industrial Relations of the Bureau
has been difficult to of Labor Statistics, U.S. Depart-
icant intermediate or ment of Labor, among both public
lanning over the past and private school teachers there
iven the University's were 81 strikes in 1967, 94 in 1968,;
on the Legislature. It I and 185 in 1969. This is but one
I
r
i
i
I"
I
ii
i.
'
l
E,
a,
!
f
1
S
1
fi
t
{
1
1
if
f
t
j
i
'
't
(
ii
j
(
i
f
4
4.
d to others that the
I important sign of the rapid de-
',