The faculty role in academic governance at institutions of higher education remains a topic of controversy, ambiguity, and misunderstanding among faculty themselves, administrators and, more recently, state legislators. The events of the past decade have further clouded the issues, for over 120,000 faculty on approximately 600 campuses are now unionized [20, 21]. The initiation of faculty collective bargaining has raised issues concerning the faculty role as employee or managerial decision maker [1], standardization of working conditions such as teaching load [3], and the status of the department head as supervisor or peer [28]. Other concerns include the effect of unions on faculty senates [43, 44], centralization of decision making at higher administrative levels [32], and the effect of collective bargaining on collegial faculty-administration relationships [15, 25, 38]. Governance generally refers to the decision-making and policy process in academic organizations. Because there is little agreement among scholars about the manner in which academic institutions are governed [4, 22, 29, 39], the imposition of the industrial model of adversarial relations upon a governance system based upon "shared authority" or "collegiality" has often resulted in confusion and mistrust between faculty and administrators. Most writing on collective bargaining, particularly in the early 1970s, chronicled the problems encountered by administrators unfamiliar with the conduct of labor negotiations [35] or warned of the

Governance at Unionized Four-Year Colleges: Effect on Decision-Making Structures.

A common generalization concerning the impact of faculty bargaining has been that traditional modes of faculty participation, particularly the institution-wide or system-wide governing bodies, will deteriorate in competition with the collective bargaining process. This paper examines the developing interactions between bargaining agents, senates, and administrations at four-year institutions bargaining for the longest period of time, and suggests that there are a number of patterns evolving for faculty participation in decision-making under collective bargaining which do not necessarily lead to the demise of traditional procedures.

/pdf/faculty-governance-and-collective-bargaining-an-early-1ttvkl5r6n.pdf

Faculty Governance and Collective Bargaining: An Early Appraisal. Special Report #5.

The effect of faculty collective bargaining on academic governance in four-year colleges and universities /

Faculty Governance and Collective Bargaining: An Early Appraisal*

The Effects of Union Exclusion on Intergroup Work Behavior In the Massachusetts State College System (May 1980) Anthony F. Ceddia B.S., Northeastern University M.Ed., Northeastern University Ed.D., University of Massachusetts Directed by: Professor William Lauroesch After the unionization of most employees in the Massachusetts State College System, certain personnel, including administrative management, confidential clerks, and nonprofessional supervisors, were designated as union excluded. At the time this occurred, no attention was given to the possible impacts a new face-to-face work group would have on campus organizational behavior. The purpose of the current study was to investigate and to assess the relationships among intergroup work behavior, union exclusion, and unionization. The hypothesis tested was that the introduction and presence of this new work group negatively affected intergroup communication, cooperation, and productivity. Additionally, related research questions focused on the feelings of employees regarding exclusion, the reactions of other work groups to exclusion, and the impact of unionization.

Terrence N. Tice

Papers

Faculty bargaining in the seventies

Faculty Power: Collective Bargaining on Campus.