In April 2010, the MSU Faculty Senate passed a resolution (SR 15-09/10) directing the Faculty Senate Executive Committee to create an ad hoc committee to investigate the drawbacks and benefits of unionization. The Ad Hoc Committee to Explore Unionization was formed in the Spring of 2010 and made its report at the October 2010 Faculty Senate meeting. Interested readers can read the full 19 page report in the links section of this blog. However, I just wanted to identify some crucial issues that led the committee to state in that report:
For their part, the committee members agree unanimously that the benefits of unionization outweigh the drawbacks.
The committee report lists 14 benefits and 11 drawbacks. The major benefit, as identified in the executive summary of the report, is primarily the right of unionized faculty to engage in “collective bargaining”. Collective bargaining is discussed in detail in the report and in even more detail in the links to the right. However, the main benefit of collective bargaining is the right by faculty to negotiate and vote on an enforceable employment contract.
The Ad Hoc committee report identifies a number of critical incidents that led to the senate resolution charging the committee to investigate unionizing the faculty at MSU. These critical incidents are all related to 5 issues that are and have been especially problematic on campus:
1. The state of shared governance at MSU.
The reports cites serious concerns about the state of shared governance that are both historical and on-going and include adversarial attitudes toward faculty role in shared governance by current and past administrations/boards. These problems have continued with the recent change in administration, especially the unbalanced power relationship between administration and faculty.
For example, the Provost’s office this past semester indicated in personal communication with union leaders that any university policy document such as the Department Head’s Handbook that have not been subject to shared governance supersede the Faculty Handbook.
2. Due process with respect to published university policies.
The “Critical Incidents” section of the report identifies a number of incidents where due process of policies passed by shared governance were not followed. These incidents related to “revisions of the Faculty Handbook, grievance, and reassignment.”
The problem of the administration not following approved policies is ongoing. Even more problematic is the attempt, as noted above, by the Provost’s office to supersede the Faculty Handbook with non-approved “policies”.
3. Faculty control of curricular matters.
Faculty control of curricular matters “is officially granted to faculty by Board of Governors policy and is institutionalized in the Faculty Handbook.” The “Critical Incidents” identify a number of instances where this policy was violated, including actions by the Board of Governors itself.
Problems have continued after the report was issued, with a confrontation at the April 2011 Faculty Senate meeting between President Cofer/Provost McCarthy and faculty over the administration's illegitimate attempts to circumvent the normal curricular process and outsource online classes.
4. Protection and expansion of resources used for academic programs.
The committee report identifies a number of “Critical Incidents” that help illustrate the continuing erosion of resources dedicated to academics. “In addition to wages used to recruit and retain faculty, a host of other salary issues exist which are of concern, including salary compression and inversion, equity, merit pay, workload, summer pay, and overload pay.”
The Faculty Senate Budget and Priorities Committee issued a report on staffing in May of 2011 that further illustrated this problem (see the links to the right for the full report). That report showed, for example, that:
· The number of ranked faculty had remained constant from 1993 to 2010 while over the same time period, the number of administrators had increased 31%, and the number of unranked faculty and professional staff had both almost tripled.
· More importantly, the share of the total budget dollars for salaries for faculty had dropped from 50.6% of the budget in 1993 to 36.6% in 2010.
· These negative changes in staffing adversely affect the ability of the university to fulfill its mission to educate students and have been an ongoing problem as the state’s level of support has eroded further.
5. Higher education issues and trends in the state of Missouri.
The Ad Hoc Committee on Unionization noted that declining state funding for higher education, which has further decreased since the report was released, had serious consequences for the university. A number of issues affected by these budgetary pressures were identified including:
1) “Even before the severe budgetary crisis hit MSU, administrators attempted to change the employment policies that were put in place to protect faculty under these precise circumstances.”
2) “Program management is occurring at the level of the Coordinating Board of Higher Education rather than locally at the state’s universities.”
3) “The academic side of the university, most relevant to the university mission, is not being given appropriate priority.”
4) “The state has historically underfunded MSU on a per student basis when compared to other state institutions.”
How can Unionization Help these Issues?
A negotiated, enforceable contract via collective bargaining will improve faculty shared governance and directly and positively affect Issues 1 through 4. Unionization can primarily affect Issue 5 via access to state level resources that improve the ability of faculty voices to be heard in Jefferson City. For example, the Missouri NEA has a full-time lobbyist, who is one of the most effective lobbyists in Jefferson City. The Missouri NEA helped the MSU Faculty Association in the past year to identify competent and faculty friendly individuals to serve as members of the Board of Governors and helped us lobby the Governor about these Board replacements.
Challenges Going Forward
Some of the major “cons” identified by the Ad Hoc committee related to the long and difficult process of organization. An organization process that would require commitment by faculty, both as leaders and union members, to educate faculty, gain support and organize so that an election over collective bargaining would ultimately be successful.
The MSU Faculty Association has begun this process, but we can all testify that these concerns were well-founded. Nonetheless, we have made several significant steps along the process of gaining the right to collective bargaining at MSU. For example, as noted by my original email announcing this blog, a chapter of the NEA has been formed at MSU. This past year as part of our organizing efforts we have instituted a one on one listening campaign that seeks to identify issues that are important to individual faculty on campus. I will post more on the listening campaign in the near future.
Although the obstacles do exist, the prospects for success are actually quite high. Not only are there a number of issues – many that are related or similar to those originally identified by the Ad Hoc Committee on Unionization – of concern to faculty but unionization resulting in collective bargaining and an enforceable contract will address most of those issues.
