The Keep

1918-1968 Warbler: "On the Road to Somewhere"

Eastern Illinois University — Thu, 10 May 2012 13:37:14 PDT

This special edition Warbler served as a 50 year compilation, documenting changes at Eastern Illinois University from 1918 to 1968.

1913 Warbler

Eastern Illinois University — Thu, 10 May 2012 13:04:35 PDT

The Warbler from 1913 was originally called the W'apper.

Interest Based Mutual Gains Bargaining

Debra Osofsky — Tue, 08 May 2012 14:40:50 PDT

Annual Legal Update

Nicholas DiGiovanni Esq. — Tue, 08 May 2012 14:40:48 PDT

Advances in Collective Bargaining in AFT Part-Time Locals

Elaine Bobrove — Tue, 08 May 2012 14:40:47 PDT

AFT represents approximately 55,000 adjuncts. These adjuncts are in a variety of units. There are 99,000 members in 72 full-time/part-time locals; approximately 35,00 of these are part-time adjuncts. There are 10,300 adjuncts in 21 part-time locals that are affiliated with full-time locals. At 20 institutions, AFT represents over 9,800 part-time adjunct faculty in stand-alone units. All of these adjunct locals have contributed much to the union movement, and at the same time, they have put pressure on the union movement for change. It is not surprising, therefore, to see that adjuncts have made gains in their march toward equity with full-time college instructors. These gains have been produced through pressure put on college administrations by the adjuncts themselves and by the full-time faculty who walk hand in hand with them. There have been significant gains made by part-time contingent faculty, but not all of these gains are the result of collective bargaining. Looking at some of the AFT contracts, the state of contingent faculty does indeed appear to be rosy—at least on the surface.

Views from Campus: Negotiators

Thomas Maraffa — Tue, 08 May 2012 14:40:45 PDT

Workshop: Collective Bargaining Basics

Terrence T. Creamer et al. — Tue, 08 May 2012 14:40:43 PDT

Negotiations Behind Negotiations: Reaching Out to Constituents

Nicholas DiObilda — Tue, 08 May 2012 14:40:42 PDT

Campus administrators and union leaders are well aware of the numerous problems created by multiple years of funding shortfalls. But the general membership of a campus union, going about its business of teaching, researching, serving the community and happily collecting a paycheck every two weeks, may not be aware of the great effort needed to help the campus thrive and to negotiate agreements beneficial to them and to the campus. Overcoming its members’ ignorance of higher education economics and bargaining is only part of the problem for the union. The other part is to convince a diverse membership, each with its own opinions, that the negotiated agreements are the best that can be written at the time.

Getting union members to ratify an agreement that does not contain everything they think they deserve requires: 1) preparation, including a candid analysis of current campus conditions; 2) the exercise of group leadership practices to involve members in the negotiations process; and 3) the adoption of open democratic processes leading to consensus.

Negotiations Behind Negotiations: A System Model

William S. Chabala — Tue, 08 May 2012 14:40:40 PDT

Negotiations Behind Negotiations: Reaching Out to Constituents

Robert Zazzali — Tue, 08 May 2012 14:40:39 PDT

Reaching consensus within one’s own constituency group, whether from the union or management perspective, is often an overlooked and underappreciated part of the bargaining process. Emphasis is typically on negotiating and getting to “yes” with the other side. While that is the culmination of the process, often the consensus-building that occurs within one’s own membership determines success or failure at the main table. That can be a tall task, given the diverse and at times opposing views and philosophies at play.

Contingent Faculty Bargaining: Separate but Equal?

Marcia Newfield — Tue, 08 May 2012 14:40:37 PDT

In the 34 years since the PSC formed part-timers have gone from footnote to frontispiece, and our journey has been internal as well as external. What are our services worth? Why are they devalued? What does it mean when we are so fragmented? Why do people in our own departments, whom we have passed in hallways for years, not treat us as colleagues? What does it mean about the profession we’re part of that we're not part of its governance? What does it mean that our passion for our subjects has landed us in a situation where we hardly have time for being creative in them? There is no one to support scholarship, no time to nurture professional development.

“The One Best Bargaining Unit?”

Joe Berry — Tue, 08 May 2012 14:40:36 PDT

In the Chicago area, and Illinois generally, there is not a single bargaining unit that includes both full-time tenure- track (FTTT) and all other contingent faculty of any institution. There are two units that include the FTTT and a large portion, varying by workload, of the contingents. All of the rest of the bargaining units in Illinois are either contingent-only units or FTTT-only, with a few of the contingent units also including academic professionals. Even recent efforts by some local existing FTTT unions to organize the contingents on their campuses have proposed separate units, with only some offering common membership in the same local union. Many of the new bargaining units among contingents in the public sector are of a different union altogether, often NEA contingents and AFT full-time faculty in the community colleges.

It’s All About the Work All the Time: Commonality of Interests in a Common Bargaining Unit

Elizabeth Hoffman — Tue, 08 May 2012 14:40:34 PDT

Lecturers, who are more than half of the 23,000 faculty in the CSU, are committed to their work but are not deluded as to their actual status in the system. Despite some success in encouraging the use of the professional term “Lecturer,” there are plenty of labels—the temps, the adjuncts, the part-time people—to remind contingent faculty of their lack of status. Perhaps the saddest but most accurate label for contingent faculty comes from the term used by academic union leaders in Mexico. Joe Berry used this term—in English, the “precarious” faculty—in a speech he made last January to a large group of contingent faculty in Los Angeles. This term instantly resonated with the audience, who knew all too well how precarious their employment status is, but also saw, with the clear eye of the outsider, the precariousness of the situation of all faculty and indeed of higher education.

Faculty Specialists/Contingent Faculty at Western Michigan University: A Personal Retrospective

Gary Mathews — Tue, 08 May 2012 14:40:33 PDT

In the Spring semester, 2005 I took a sabbatical for the second time in my twenty-nine years as a professor at Western Michigan University (WMU). The dictionary defines a sabbatical as “release from normal teaching duties granted to a professor, as for study or travel.” When faculty, friends and relatives ask me what I did on my sabbatical, I first tell them that I spent the month of January in Aruba; basking in the sun, snorkeling, and playing poker. Everyone seems to like and understand that answer. Then I say that I am writing a brief history of the Faculty Specialist employee category, and I get blank stares in return. Two questions are most often asked: “What is a faculty specialist?” and “Why are you doing that?”

Gen X Meets Theory X: What New Scholars Want

Cathy Trower — Tue, 08 May 2012 14:40:31 PDT

“If they can’t understand that I want a kick-ass career and a kick-ass life, then I don’t want to work here,” sums up how many Generation X’ers (born between 1965 and 1980) view their workplace, according to Lancaster and Stillman (2002, p. 107). Further, “Why does it matter when I come and go, as long as I get the work done?” (p. 114). As a group, Gen X’ers are willing to work hard but want to decide when, where, and how. As this generation enters the professoriate in large numbers, some academic institutions may be wondering what hit them. Gen X has met Theory X (a metaphor for a 1960’s workplace) and it is not a pretty sight.

Raising A University Through Collective Bargaining

Robert Avery — Tue, 08 May 2012 14:40:30 PDT

Collective bargaining at its idealist core promises to “love, honor and respect till death do us part.” Historically that has been about as successful as the institution demanding the promise as a condition precedent to the marital union formed. Nevertheless, the progeny of that union, no matter how difficult and imperfect, is the responsibility of that union. Even where there is no duality, there remains a responsibility that is both transparent and undeniable to mold, grow, influence and set an example of excellence for the higher education entity to grow into. This responsibility is then borne of the greatest, purest and most honorable opportunity. It is from this perspective that collective bargaining yields the best results for the entity. It is from this perspective that I approach collective bargaining, however confounding, irritating and obnoxiously particular it seems, as spirit, intent and letter of the rules for the organization to grow by are fashioned.

A Disconnect with Fiduciary Responsibility

Mitchell Vogel — Tue, 08 May 2012 14:40:28 PDT

“And They Call Pennsylvania a Blue State?”

Pat Heilman — Tue, 08 May 2012 14:40:27 PDT

By now, most academicians are aware of the assaults on academic freedom as contained in the Academic Bill of Rights (ABOR) legislation introduced, in some form, in some 24 states. Part of a national movement to muzzle professors deemed too liberal for our colleges and universities, this witch hunt, instigated by former liberal radical David Horowitz, has had a chilling effect on campuses. Some faculty organizations are fighting back; APSCUF (Association of Pennsylvania State College and University Faculties), a union representing some 5,500 faculty and coaches in the Pennsylvania State System of Higher Education (PASSHE), is one of them. This paper outlines what has occurred in Pennsylvania and the measures APSCUF has taken to defuse and debunk Horowitz’s assaults on academic freedom.

Hiring Practices for Faculty

Toni Munos et al. — Tue, 08 May 2012 14:40:25 PDT

Best Practices Language - History of Hiring Practices: 1985-1987 MCCFA Contract

Bill Newton — Tue, 08 May 2012 14:40:24 PDT

The Impact of College and University Faculty Collective Bargaining on State Appropriations to Public Higher Education

Jeffrey Franklin Cross — Tue, 08 May 2012 14:40:22 PDT

Many public college and university faculties have unionized since public employees gained the right to bargain collectively in several states. Most studies of the effects of faculty unionization have been at the institutional level and have included faculty compensation, workload, and other conditions of employment. Although results of these studies are mixed, unionized faculties at four-year institutions experience greater compensation increases in their early years of collective bargaining, but this early advantage subsequently tails off until there is no difference from nonunion counterparts.

The Fiscal Crisis of the Campus: The View from California

R. Jeffrey Lustig — Tue, 08 May 2012 14:40:21 PDT

The significance of the disinvestment in American baccalaureate, Ph.D. and community college institutions in recent years can hardly be exaggerated. The quandary posed by the attendant reduced funding goes beyond issues of crowded classrooms and dilapidated facilities; ultimately it questions whether our higher education will continue to be a gateway to equality and guarantor of opportunity, a path to broader horizons for citizens—or if it will be transformed into a bulwark of social inequality and vehicle for narrow vocational instruction.

Determining how to successfully grapple with this decline in funding is hindered, however, by the ways in which policy-makers and pundits pose the problem. They reify the forces involved, obscuring the fact that the fiscal problem of the American university is at root a political problem whose resolution requires a political response.

Financing Higher Education: Privatization, Resistance and Renewal

Gerald Turkel — Tue, 08 May 2012 14:40:19 PDT

The fiscal crisis of higher education currently is being resolved largely through a financing policy of privatization, a pattern that increasingly shifts responsibility to individual students and their families. The politics of privatization makes it ever more difficult for lower-income students to attend college and has become a major financial burden for middle-income people. Beyond the direct financial consequences, privatization has increasingly subordinated the research and educational missions of higher education to the countervailing imperatives of economic growth and competitiveness. Privatization has enhanced the entrepreneurial and corporate features of universities and colleges, increasingly shifting the values of higher education away from notions of common property and the common good to individual self-interest and careerism. The autonomy of higher education institutions has been weakened, both the economic status and professional independence of the faculty have been undermined, and students are increasingly defined as consumers.

Conference Program

Tue, 08 May 2012 14:40:17 PDT

This document is the program of the 33rd annual conference of the National Center for the Study of Collective Bargaining in Higher Education and the Professions.