 ecently
AAUP has increased its membership campaign efforts, and its officers have
publicly stated that they plan to seek union status and election as the
faculty collective bargaining agent. These actions have prompted numerous
requests for a statement from university administration about faculty unionization.
In response to these requests and in light of the significant consequences
faculty unionization can have for Wright State, we have decided to share
our views. We do not favor the formation of a faculty union at Wright State
University and feel responsible to explain our rationale.
In theory and in practice, union-management relations are both restricted and adversarial, as both "sides" seek positions of advantage in the bargaining environment. In fact, during the past year we have increasingly seen the AAUP leaders assume a preemptive, centralized role posing as the voice of the faculty, and rhetoric has replaced logic in interchanges between AAUP officers and university administrators. Ardent criticism and adverse "spins" have been levied about management arbitrariness in spite of exhaustive efforts at broad collegial involvement, consultation with elected faculty leaders, observance of policy and bylaws; important academic issues have been reduced to conditions of employment. In effect, the AAUP leadership seems determined to take over the faculty governance structure and to set the agenda, painting a negative picture of administrative leadership regardless of what we do to follow the traditional, regulatory and legitimate processes of university operation. The issues are focused as power relationships, and nothing administrators do is "right," because union leadership only flourishes if it has an adversary to oppose. This relationship actually inhibits our efforts to address faculty and student needs and work with faculty to solve problems tied to external restrictions on facilities and budgets. We believe this illustrates one of the most dramatic changes in the academic culture resulting from unionization. The victim in this relationship is the idea of the community of scholarsÑthe collegium. Under the union contract, only the union officials speak for the bargaining unit on matters affecting "wages, hours or terms and other conditions of employment." Faculty relinquish their traditional role in governance to gain a collective voice regarding terms and conditions of employment. Of course that collective voice brings its own limitations as well: under the traditional environment in which faculty enjoy the security of employment, peer review, direct access to administration, and tenure in the academic disciplines, they also enjoy freedom as professionals to explore new directions, negotiate flexible assignments, and pursue scholarly or pedagogical interests. As members of a labor unit, faculty essentially forfeit professional status and the flexibility of individualism currently enjoyed, |
a flexibility that enhances the opportunities
for discovery, professional growth and student enrichment. The collective
good as perceived by the union replaces the relative independence of professionalism.
Unionization of faculty has often produced results that are not in the best interest of the collegium. For example, the union interest in collective representation has often led to strict limitations on promotion and tenure numbers and eligibility, research-oriented release time and even departmental committee structures. In many universities, the struggle between the bargaining agent and elected leadership has blurred and even overcome collegial aspects of faculty responsibility for deliberation on a academic issues and policy development. On the other hand, unions are powerless on workload issues, which are of keen interest to many faculty, because under Ohio law, faculty workload policies are not appropriate subjects for bargaining. Wright State University has grown so rapidly in the past 30 years because its faculty have been able to seek new opportunities, try new ideas, start new programs, depend on administrative support for matching dollars, facilities, equipment, released time, etc. Faculty have been highly successful in sponsored research grants, thanks partly to research incentive funding and administrative trust in and support of faculty expertise. Trustees have tried through policy and practice to assure both market competitiveness in compensation and reward for meritorious achievements of faculty. Faculty leaders, faculty task forces and committees have worked independently and freelyÑand cooperativelyÑto effect great advances in short time. Since Wright State's founding, faculty have served as professionals and have shared governance responsibilities with each other and with administrators. Losing the traditions of academic collegiality would change all of that. In a unionized environment, how will research and individual merit fare? Will academic research, creativity and scholarship be relegated to bargaining unit terms and conditions? Those responsible for leading the university and managing its operations, and many faculty members who have spoken out in recent weeks, believe that the change created by faculty unionization would be undesirable for all members of the university community. They believe unionism should be avoided if we value excellence and professionalism for the benefit of our students and the search for knowledge. It is our hope that faculty will want to continue to work with administration, through traditional forms of collegial governance, and resist the temptation to react to temporary external fiscal pressure and the tough choices of institutional planning by giving up professional responsibility in favor of collectivism and the perceived "security" of union representation. Above all, our objective is to assure your right to make a free and informed choice about collective bargaining. To that end, we will be providing information about faculty options and responsibilities related to collective bargaining in the coming months. |