ED 091 981

AUTHORTITLE

INSTITUTION

PUB DATENOTEAVAILABLE FROM

DOCUMENT RESUME

HE 065 531

Lozier, G. Gregory; Mortimer, Kenneth P.Anatomy of a Collective Bargaining Election inPennsylvania's State-Owned Colleges.Pennsylvania State Univ., University Park. Center forthe Study of Higher Education.Feb 74123p.Center for the Study of Higher Education, 101 RackleyBuilding, The Pennsylvania State University,University Park, Pennsylvania 16802

EDRS PRICE MF-$0.75 HC-$5.40 PLUS POSTAGEDESCRIPTORS *Collective Bargaining; *Collective Negotiation;

College Faculty; *Elections; Governance; *HigherEducation; *State Colleges; Teacher Characteristics;Voting

IDENTIFIERS *Pennsylvania

ABSTRACTFollowing introductory material, this report examines

the collective bargaining election in Pennsylvania's stateownedcolleges. The second section establishes the contextual framework forthe election. This section discusses certain features of thePennsylvania State Colleges, reviews the election campaign waged bythe respective contending associations, and provides a brief analysisof respondents' answers to several open-ended questions at the end ofthe survey instrument pertaining to the issues in the campaign. Thenext five sections deal with the major issues being studied: facultycharacteristics, the bargaining unit, the associations, the scope ofnegotiations, and internal versus external governance structures asinfluences on voting behavior. A description of the issue and adiscussion of the survey results are presented for each issue. Thefinal section summarizes the report findings and cites severalconclusions generated from these findings. (Author/MJA)

t -4 Anatomy of acoCollectiveBargainingcD

Election in

:5 PEAR(VEhr r4-4

NAT DNA, 4NST ,J1'kElDoCATi5

Pennsylvania'sState-OwnedCollegesG. Gregory LozierandKenneth P. Mortimer

Center for the Study ofHigher Education

The Pennsylvania State University

coAnatomy of a

cp CollectiveBargainingElection inPennsylvania'sState-OwnedColleges

G. Gregory LozierandKenneth P. Mortimer

Center for the Study of Higher Education

The Pennsylvania State UniversityUniversity Park, Pennsylvania

February 1974

Contents

List of TablesPage

I. Introduction 1

Collective Bargaining: Need for the StudyDesign of the StudyOrganization of the Report

II. Contextual Framework of the Election 6Historical OverviewThe Election CampaignThe Campaign as Viewed by the Faculty

III. Faculty Characteristics and Support for Collective Bargaining 22Previous FindingsCharacteristics and Voting Behavior

IV. The Bargaining Unit 28Determination of an Appropriate UnitFaculty Attitudes Toward Their Unit

V. The Contending Associations 32The American Federation of TeachersThe National Education AssociationThe American Association of University ProfessorsVoting Behavior and the Associations

VI. The Scope of Negotiations 44The IssuesVoting Behavior and the Scope of Negotiations

VII. The Strike and Collective Bargaining 52ProfessionalismThe Associations and the StrikeStrike LegislationVoting Behavior and the Strike

VIII. Governance and Collective Bargaining 61Shared AuthorityInternal Versus External Governance Structures

IX. Conclusions 67Alternative Voting BehaviorDiscussion of ResultsSummary of Conclusions

Appendix A: Tables 2.27; 29.30 77

Appendix B: Tests of the Reliability of the Sampling Distribution ofRespondents 111

Appendix C: Classification of Academic Departments According toAcademic Divisions 115

iv

List of Tables*

Table

1. Vote Distribution for the Population and for the Sample ofRespondents (See page 4.)

2. Faculty Reasons for Voting Behavior and Faculty Awareness ofCampaign Issues and Promises by Voting Behavior

3. Crosstabulation of Faculty Voting Behavior and Tenure4. Analysis of Variance Mean Ages by Faculty Voting Behavior5. Crosstabulation of Faculty Voting Behavior and Academic

Department6. Crosstabulation of Faculty Voting Behavior and Time Devoted

to Teacher Education7. Analysis of Variance of Mean Years of Service at Present College

by Faculty Voting Behavior8. Analysis of Variance of Mean Years of Service at One or More

Pennsylvania State Colleges by Faculty Voting Behavior9. Analysis of Variance of Mean Years of Service at Other (Non-

Pennsylvania State College) Institutions by FacultyVoting Behavior

10. Analysis of Variance of Mean Years of Teaching Experience inElementary and/or Secondary Schools by Faculty VotingBehavior

11. Crosstabulation of Voting Behavior and Faculty Agreement orDisagreement with the Definition of the Bargaining Unit

12. Crosstabulation of VOting Behavior and Faculty Selection ofthe "Most Prestigious" Association

13. Crosstabulation of Voting Behavior and Faculty Selection ofthe "Most Union-Oriented" Association

14. Crosstabulation of Voting Behavior and Faculty Selection ofthe "Most Professionally Oriented" Association

15. Crosstabulation of Voting Behavior and Faculty Selection ofthe Association "Historically Committed to CollectiveBargaining"

All tables are in Appendix A except Tables 1 and 28.

LIST OF TABLES {CONT.)

16. Crosstabulation of Voting Behavior and Faculty Selection ofthe Association with the "Greatest National Visibility"

17. Crosstabulation of Voting Behavior and Faculty Selection ofthe "Greatest Visibility within Pennsylvania"

18. Crosstabulation of Voting Behavior and Faculty Selection ofthe Association which is "Least Likely to Strike"

19. Crosstabulation of Voting Behavior and Faculty Selection ofthe Association with the "Greatest Lobbying Potentialin Harrisburg"

20. Analysis of Variance of Potential Collective Bargaining IssuesRanked from Most to Least Satisfied

21. Post Hoc Comparison of Potential Collective Bargaining IssuesRanked from Most to Least Satisfied

22. Analysis of Variance of Potential Collective Bargaining IssuesRanked from Should be Negotiated to Should Not beNegotiated

23. Post Floc Comparison of Potential Collective Bargaining issuesRanked from Should be Negotiated to Should Not beNegotiated

24. Analysis of Variance of Ranked Statements Expressing Respon-dents' Attitudes About Faculty Use of the Strike

25. Post Hoc Comparison of Ranked Statements Expressing Respon-dents', Attitudes About Faculty Use of the Strike

26. Analysis of Variance of Ranked Statements Expressing Respon-dents' Attitudes About Internal vs. External GovernanceInfluences Upon The;r Vote

27. Post Hoc Comparison of Ranked Statements Expressing Respon-dents' Attitudes About Internal vs. External GovernanceInfluence Upon Their Vote

28. Distribution of the Population and the Sample of Respondentsby Academic Rank (See Appendix B.)

29. Data for Respondents and Nonrespondents for Years of Serviceat Their Institution, Academic Rank, and Academic Disci-pline

30. Comparison of the Population Distribution and the Four MailingDistributions for Voting Behavior and Academic Rank

vi

1

Introduction

Collective Bargaining; Need for the Study

Collective bargaining among college and university faculty is arelatively new development. It has been just ten years since the firstfaculty strike at the Detroit Institute of Technology in 1963, and onlyeight years since faculty picket lines were assembled at St. John'sUniversity in New York,

By 1969, the faculty at a number of two-year institutionshad chosen collective baNaining. The City University of New Yorkcontract, however, because of its apparently high salary level, focusedthe attention of the entire higher education community on the union-ization of faculty. From spring 1971 to spring 1973, the number ofinstitutions with unionized faculty grew from 80 to 202, an increaseof 152 percent.1 In that same period, the total number of unionizedcampuses rose from 138 to 301, an increase of 118 percent.Faculty organizing activities have been concentrated in relativelyfew states, primarily as a result of legislation enabling public em-ployees to bargain collectiVely. Ninety-five percent of all college anduniversity campuses, public and private, with a collectively organizedfaculty are situated in just twelve states; 28 percent are in New Yorkalone. In these states collective bargaining in higher education is a verysignificant issue, one which is creating new dimensions in faculty-administration and institution-state relationships.

While Wo !fetes comment that "One of the most surprisingfacts of collective negotiations ;n higher education is the paucity ofreliable information"2 is not as true today as it was two years ago,much of what is said or written about collective negotiations contin-ues to be essentially speculative. A scarcity in relevant research is aresult in part of the nature of the collective bargaining phenomenon.

1 The Chronicle rkf higher Education, May 10, 1971, p. 14;0, 1973, p. 4.20. H. Wollett, "The Status and Trends of Collective Nego-

tiatiorl for Faculty in Higher Education," Wisconsin Law Review1971 f't\lo, 1): 29.

Although collective bargaining'appears to have inevitable impact uponthe governance structures and processes of the institution, this im-pact has not been realized since many unionized colleges and univer.sities have not yet completed negotiations, or are only ir, the firstyear of an agreement. Furthermore, contract negotiations are oftenheld up. In one instance they lagged for eighteen months and inanother, for twenty-four months. Under these circumstances, it hasbeen difficult to assess to any great measure the ongoing impact ofcollective bargaining on the institution.

This report is an account of the voting behavior of the facultymembers in the thirteen Pennsylvania State Colleges and IndianaUniversity of Pennsylvania (to be referred to henceforth as the Penn-sylvania State Colleges) in an election to choose a bargaining agent.*The election was held on October 6, 1971, with three associations onthe ballot: (1) the Association of Pennsylvania State College and Uni-versity Faculties in affiliation with the Pennsylvania Association forHigher Education (APSCUF-PAHE) and associated with the NationalEducation Association (NEA); (2) the American Association of Uni-versity Professors (AAUP); and (3) the American Federation of Teach-ers (AFT). A fourth choice, "No Representative", also appeared onthe ballot as specified by statute.3 The election was won on the firstballot by APSCUF -PANE, which obtained 55.5 percent of the vote.

This research studies the relationship between voting behaviorand two potential sources of variance:, (1) faculty characteristics and(2) attitudes and!or opinions about several key issues of collectivenegotiations in higher education, This design goes beyond existingstudies, most of which looked for relationships between demographicand social characteristics and attitudes toward collective bargainicg,by associating characteristics and attitudinal variables with voting

The thirteen are: Bloomsburg, California, Cheyney,E. Stroudsburg, Edinboro, Kutztown, Lock Haven, Mansfield,

Millersville, Shippensburg, Slippery Rock, West Chester and IndianaUniversity.

3The Pennsylvania Public Employee Relations Act (Act 195),July 1970,

2

behavior.4 This study assumes significant differences between peoples'feeling toward an issue and their ultimate reaction when confrontedby a situation in which they must make a choice between alternatives.The faculty characteristics examined include academic rank, age, sex,academic discipline, length of service at the present and other institu-tions, tenure status, employment status (fulltime versus part-time),service on faculty committees, department chairmanship, and involve-ment in teacher education, The issues were synthesized from relevantliterature and were as follows: the scope of negotiations the bargain-ing unit, differences among national associations, and the influenceof internal versus external governance structures upon the selectionof a bargaining agent.

Design of the Study

The method of data collection chosen for this study was thesurvey questionnaire. An original instruments was designed andtested for face validity by several labor relations experts, two researchmethodologists, professional staff members from one of the associ-ations involved in the election, and three faculty members, then onleave from several of the State Colleges, who were pursuing graduatestudies at The Pennsylvania State University. The questionnaire wasdistributed to a 50 percent sample of the actual bargaining unit mem-bership which consisted of all full-time faculty, part-time faculty,department chairmen, and librarians with and without faculty status.

4 For example: J. 0. Haehn, Study of Trade UnionismAmong State College Professors (Academic Senate of the CaliforniaState Colleges, 1970); J. W. Moore, "Attitudes Toward CollectiveNegotiations: "Pennsylvania Community College Faculty" (UniversityPark, Pa.: Center for the Study of Higher Education, 1971);R. W. Opdahl, 1.ac Idly Participation in Academie Derision Making in

nelging- State Colleges (Williamsport, Pa.: Economic ResearchAssociates, inc., 1971); R. E. Lane, "Faculty Unionism in a CaliforniaState CollegeA Comparative Analysis of Union Members and NonUnion Members" (Doctoral dissertation, University of Iowa, 1967).

5 For a copy of the instrument, see Gilmour Gregory Lozier,"Voting Patterns of Pennsylvania State College Faculty in a CollectiveNegotiations Election" (Doctoral dissertation, The Pennsylvania StateUniversity, 1973).

A series of four mailings conducted over a six-week period betweenJanuary 10, 1972 and February 22, 1972 produced an overall re-sponse rate of 61.2 (Sercent (n = 1263). Because thirty-nine of theseinstruments were totally unusable and another 266 were not complet-ed entirely, the response rate for individual items of the question-naire ranged from 59.3 percent (n = 1224) to 46.4 percent (n 958).

Statistical analysis of sampling distributions and of the datacollected to test research hypotheses employed three different proce-dures: chi-square test of statistical independence,(2) chi-square testof hypothetical proportions, and (3) analysis of variance. Additionalstatistical follow-up procedures (a chi-square analog to Scheffe'sTheorem and the Tukey WSD test) were used to analyze further pre-liminary statistical significances. A standard alpha of 0.05 was em-ployed as the level of significance for all tests. Since the computer-;zed programs utilized allowed for reading over missing data, valuesfor missing data were not supplied and the sample size n for eachtest varied according to the rate of response for a particular ques-tionnaire item.

Since one of the criticisms of the mail survey is its inability toaccount for or estimate the effect of nonrespondents upon the ob-tained results, several statistical tests were conducted to assess thereliability of the sampling distribution of respondents. Table I pre-sents the corresponding distributions of voting behavior for the ac-tual election population with the behavior of the survey respondents.A nonsignificant chi-square (X2 = 2.99, df = 3) suggested that thesample of voting respondents was representative of the voting popula-tion

TABLE IVOTE DISTRIBUTION FOR THE POPULATION AND

FOR THE SAMPLE OF RESPONDENTS

Voting Option

APSCUF-

PAHE AAUP 71,1 T No Hop Iota;

/f % 9 % 9 95', 9 % Iii

Poputat,on 2009 55.5 1282 35.4 158 4.4 169 4.7 3618 100 0

Hespanderrts 659 57.7 383 33.5 44 3.8 56 4.9 1142 100.0

X2 = 2.99, df 3.4

Additional procedures included a the'or,Oicat.tot,of ,proportions ofthe relationship between the distribution of the population and thesample of respondents by academic rank and by voting behavior foreach of the four mailings, plus appropriate statistical tests betweenrespondents and a sample of nonrespondents on three variables:academic discipline, academic rank, and number of years of service atthe institution, The results of these tests generally confirmed (1) thatno bias apparently existed between the respondents and nonrespon-dents in the three characteristics examined and (2) that the obtainedsample of respondents was representative of the Pennsylvania StateCollege bargaining unite'

Organization of the Report

The remainder of this report is presented in seven sections.The section immediately following establishes the contextual frame-work for the election. This section discusses certain features of thePennsylvania State Colleges, re.,,Jws the election campaign waged bythe respective contending associations, and provides'a brief analysisof respondents' answers to several open-ended questions at the end ofthe survey instrument pertaining to the issues in the campaign. Thenext five sections deal with the major issues being studied: facultycharacteristics, the bargaining unit, the associations, the scope ofnegotiations, and internal versus external governance structures asinfluences upon voting behavior. A description of the issue and a dis-cussion of the survey results is presented for each issue. The final sec-tion summarizes the report findings and cites several conclusionsgenerated born these findings.

6The corresponding tables and statistical results of these testsare reported in Appendix B. in particular, several significant resultsare noted, and potential explanations for the significances discussed.

5

Contextual Framework of the Election

The bargaining agent election for the Pennsylvania State Col-leges was not an isolated event. The environment in which it occurredwas influenced by the organizational and curricular transitions ofthese colleges, by their relationship to the state, and by their govern-ance structures. Hence, in order to understand faculty attitudesabout the election and election issues, some understanding of theelectoral context is required. This chapter contains a brief historicaloverview of the Pennsylvania State Colleges followed by a review ofthe election campaign, and a summary of faculty responses to thesecampaign issues.

Historical Overviewl

The Pennsylvania State Colleges have followed an evolution.ary pattern generally attributable to most state colleges in the UnitedStates: from local academies,to normal schools, to state teacher col-leges, and ultimately to state colleges and universities. In 1857 Penn-sylvania passed "An Act to Provide for the Due Training of Teachersfor the Common Schools of the State"; in 1859 the institution pres-ently known as Millersville State College became the first school toreceive recognition as a Pennsylvania normal school.2 Between1913 and 1922, by authority of the State's 1910 School Code, thestate of Pennsylvania acquired sole ownership of the then fourteenstate normal schools. Between 1923 and 1932 these normal schoolswere granted the power to confer degrees and to change their nameto State Teachers' Colleges. Although in the ensuing years their rela-tionship with the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania underwent several

lAn historical perspective of the Pennsylvania State Collegesis also found in William Toombs and Stephen D. Millman, Pennsy/ra-//ids "State-Owned- Institutions: Some Dimensions of Degree Out-Put (University Park, Pa.: Center for the Study of Higher Education,Report No. 20, February, 1973).

2Saul Sack, fusion. of Higher Education in Pennsylvania,vol. 2 (Harrisburg, Pa.: The Pennsylvania Historical and MuseumCommission, 1963), p. 526.

6

transitions, the next significant change for these colleges was theelimination of the "Teachers' " designation in 1960. In 1966a furtheralteration was made when an act of the Pennsylvania legislaturechanged the name of Indiana State College to Indiana University ofPennsylvania.

In very recent years, several significant chznges in the system-wide state governance of these colleges have occurred. In 1970, theState Colleges were separated from the public school system and be-came a part of the Commonwealth system of higher education.3 ABoard of State College and University Directors was created andcharged with the responsibility to plan and coordinate the develop-ment of the system of State Colleges. As currently administered, thePennsylvania State Colleges are operating within a complex governancestructure which includes the:

1. Secretary of Education.2. State Department of Education.3. Board of State Colleges Directors.4. Boards of Trustees of the several State Colleges and

Universities.5. Board of Presidents of State Colleges and State Uni-

versities.6. Presidents of the fourteen state-owned colleges.4

Since the passage of Act 224 in 1972,5 the responsibilities of theSecretary of Education and the State Department of Education havebeen increased, particularly for new program approvals and campusexpansion.

The transition during the 1960s of the Pennsylvania StateTeachers' Colleges to state college status was accompanied by an in-creasing curricular emphasis on the arts, humanities, and sciences.Nevertheless, teacher training has remained a major function and ser-vice of these institutions. In the area of governance, faculty members

3Act of the General Assembly No. 13. Approved February17, 1970.

4W. F. Donny-I Study (J./ uu Patterns of State-Owned Higher Education Institutions, rev. ed. (Harrisburg, Pa.:Pennsylvania Department of Education, 1972), p. 18.

5Act of the General Assembly No. 224. Approved 1972.

7

at these colleges have Ilad varying degrees of impact upon institution-al decision making. On some campuses, faculty senates had func-tioned less than four years at the time of the bargaining agent electionin 1971, while other campuses had no governing faculty body.

Salary scales compiled by the AAUP indicated that for theacademic year 1971.72, the average salary of faculty members at thePennsylvania State Colleges was below those of their counterpartsat the three major state-related universities in Pennsylvania,6and be-low those at the State Colleges in New Jersey where the faculty hadalready unionized. For example, average faculty compensation (ad-justed for fringe benefits) jOr full prokssors at the PennsylvaniaState Colleges was approximately $5,000 to $6,000 below compen-sation for their counterparts in the state-related universities, and$4,000 to $5,000 below that of full professors in the New Jersey sys-tem. At the associate, assistant, and instructor ranks, the PennsylvaniaState College faculty compensation was approximately $3,000,$2,000, and $3,000 lower respectively than the monies received atthe other aforementioned colleges and universities.

Statewide coordination and line-item budget control has fur-ther limited the scope of individual institutional planning and decisionmaking of the Pennsylvania State Colleges. In general, conditions atthese colleges were fairly typical of those conditions described bythe American Association for Higher Education Task Force onAcademic Governance in 1967 as conducive to faculty unionization:

In many cases, these institutions have grownout of former teachers colleges which had a limitedenrollment and a specific educational objective. In this

6The Pennsylvania State University, Temple University, andthe University of Pittsburgh. A fourth institution, Lincoln University,has become a state-related institution since 1971.

8

context, the conventional forms of faculty tepi esenta-tion often are shallowly rooted or nonexistent. Conse-quently, when the institution is elevated suddenly to afull fledged college or university, many strains arelikely to develop. The new faculty members, in par-ticular, who come with strongly held notions of facul-ty rights to representation may have strong negativereactions to the lingOng style of rigid administrativecontrol. The problems of transition have on occasionbeen aggravated by the Fact that the top administra-tors have a background in secondary education withan authoritarian tradition of management inappropri-ate to colleges and universities. Significantly, severalstudies have revealed that in such situations militantfaculty activityincluding the formation of a unionis more likely to come from newer faculty memberswith exemplary academic credentials than from themore senior elements on the campus.The legal right of the faculty at the Pennsylvania State Col-

leges to become collectively organized and bargain was guaranteed bythe Pennsylvania "Public Employe Relations Act" of July 1970.8On January 22, 1971, the Association of Pennsylvania State Collegesand University FacultiesPennsylvania Association for Higher Educa-tion (APSCUF-PAHE)petitioned the Pennsylvania Labor RelationsBoard (PLRB) for exclusive representation of all faculty at the Penn-sylvania State Colleges and University.9 Subsequently, the AmericanAssociation of University Professors (AAUP) and the American Fed-eration of Teachers (AFT) filed intervening petitions on February 8,1971 and March 3, 1971, respectively. Disagreement over the defini-tion of an appropriate bargaining unit for the Pennsylvania State

7AAHE-NEA Task Force on Faculty Representation andAcademic Negotiations, Faculty Participation in Academic Govern-ance (Washington, D. C.: American Association for Higher Educa-tion, 1967), pp. 10-11.

BAct of the General Assembly No. 195, "Public EmployeRelations Act." Approved July 23, 1970.

9Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board, "The Order and theNotice of Election," August 4, 1971.

9

Colleges, and with the procedures for resolving that disagreement,prevented the Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board from issuing aunit determination decision until August 4, 1971. The Board orderedan election for October 6, 1971. Regarding the unit, the Board con-cluded:

That the unit appropriate for the purpose ofcollective bargaining is a subdivision of the EmployerUnit comprised of all department chairmen, full-timeteaching faculty (including librarians with facultystatus), part-time teaching faculty, and librarianswithout faculty status employed by the employer atthe thirteen state colleges and at Indiana University ofPennsylvania. ' °

The Election Campaign

In order to comprehend the results of the collective bargainingagent election more thoroughly, an examination of the bargainingagent election campaign was deemed appropriate. The primary pur-pose of this examination was to determine the issues which were de-bated and perhaps responsible for the outcome of the election. Twoprocedures were used to gather information about the campaign. Thefirst was an examination of available campaign literature. From thismaterial, campaign proposals, charges, and countercharges have beenextracted. Secondly, open-ended questions were included on the sur-vey instrument. These latter results present the campaign issues fromthe perspective of the respondents to the questionnaire.

As evidenced by the election returns, the election was primar-ily a two-way contest, with the AFT and "No Representative" optionstogether receiving only 9.1 percent of the votes cast. The AAUP andAPSCUF2PAHE received 35.4 percent and 55.5 percent of the votesrespectively. (Approximately 10 percent of the eligible voters didnot vote.) It became apparent during the summer months pre-ceding the election that the AFT would not be a contender in theelection. Ferris noted that during these months, when the other twoassociations were issuing a considerable volume of campaign litera-ture, only one piece of AFT literature appeared in the mails.1 1

1° Ibid., p. 2.11 F. J. Ferris, "The Progress of an Election," APSCUOPAI/1:

Journal 25 (December 1971): 3-6.10

Accordingly, the AFT's position on the issues of the campaign wasnot readily discernible.

During the campaign an organization was established to pm-mote the election of the "No Representative" option: The Volun-teers Operating To Elect No Organization (VOTE NO). The VOTENO position on the election was put forth in a fact sheet issued bythe group entitled "You Can Vote No."12 This publication madeseveral main points. First, it suggested that the "real question" in theelection was not which association should be elected, but whether ornot to unionize. Second, the VOTE NO publication suggested thatexisting structures of faculty governance were more effective for theprotection of basic faculty rights than collective bargaining. Thepublication portrayed collective bargaining as seeking equality throughmodiocrity and faculty senates as faculty-instituted organizationsdezUng their powers from the governed constituents. Third, thebenefits of collective bargaining accrued to the victorious associationand not to the individual faculty member. With statewide negotia-tions, local inputs would be minimal or nonexistent. Fourth, depend-ing upon the determination of a representative agency, the bargainingagreement could ultimately be ratified by only a minority of themembers of the unit. Fifth, and finally, the major thrust and hopeof the VOTE NO campaign was to create a run-off election, Theemphasis in this campaign was vote, though preferably for "No Rep-resentative." The "No Representative" group indicated their beliefa "no" vote would not be thrown away, that it would not be a voteagainst any of the contending associations, but that it would be a voteagainst unionization.

If there was one overriding issue between the AAUP andAPSCUF-PAHE portrayed in available campaign materials, it was theseries of events during the spring of 1971 pertaining to the determi-nation of the bargaining unit which postponed the election until thefollowing fall. APSCUF-PAHE portrayed the series of events as fol-lows:13

12"You Can Vote NO! Facts and Reflections on the October6 Election" (Volunteers Operating to Elect No Organization, n.d.).

13"Chronology of Election Events," Election Extra (Harris-burg, Pa.: APSCUF-PAHE, n.d.), p.4.

11

Following the initial petition by APSCUF-PAHE in January1971, and subsequent intervening petitions by the AAUP and AFT inthe weeks that followed, the Board of State Colleges and UniversityPresidents took the position that department chairmen should be ex-cluded from the bargaining unit. When it was determined that theGovernor and the State Office of Administration would be declaredthe employer for the State Colleges, the personnel committee of theBoard of State Colleges and University Directors decided not to goon record on the chairman issue. Over the weekend of April 16.17,APSCUF -PAHE mounted a statewide campaign for inclusion of de-partment chairmen in the unit. At a meeting on Monday, April 19with the Lieutenant Governor, who became involved at the requestof the Governor, the common position of the three associations wasreasserted. A week later, at a meeting of the Board of Presidents withthe Governor and the Lieutenant Governor, the Board modified itsposition and agreed to include department chairmen in the bargain-ing unit.

On April 28 representatives of the associations were invitedto a meeting on the following day in the Lieutenant Governor's of-fice. At this meeting the revised position of the state was announced,along with a call for the initiation of negotiations as soon as possible.

The AAUP representatives did not appear at the preelectionhearing before the PLRB on April 29, but they did file an unfairlabor practice charge. This charge claimed,collusion between the Com-monwealth and APSCUF-PAHE. According to APSCUF-PAHE, thislatter action was a deliberate delay tactic which aborted the hearingas well as efforts for an early election. The Deputy Attorney Generalof Pennsylvania announced that before an election could be conduct-ed, a full-scale hearing of the AAUP's collusion complaint wouldhave to be heard, at which time the entire department chairman issuecould possibly be reexamined. At a meeting in the Office of the Com-monwealth Attorney on May 21, the AAUP agreed to withdraW itscharges and to proceed with an election in the fall. This agreement al-so reaffirmed inclusion of department chairmen in the bargainingunit.

12

Although letters of agreement were written and mailed forsignatures to all concerned parties on May 27, a signed copy of theAAUP's agreement was not received until July 14, 1971. In an ex-change of letters between the APSCUF-PAHE campaign coordinatorand the Lieutenant Governor, several of the facts established at theApril n meeting in the Lieutenant Governor's office were reaf-firmed." These included: (a) That the Commonwealth was ready andeager for a spring election, (b) That resolving the matter of inclusionor exclusion in the bargaining unit of job titles in APSCUF-PAHE'spetition other than the department chairman would prohibit thepossibility of a spring election, and (c) That the Board of Presidentshad requested a commitment from the Association of a willingnessfor local negotiations on local issues.

A memorandum from a national NEA staff officer toAPSCUF-PAHE staff members working on the election emphasizedthat prior to the AAUP's "delay tactics" APSCUF-PAHE had beenable to get the administration to agree to include department chair-men in the unit and to consent to May 10, 1971 as an election date.15The memorandum presented APSCUF-PAHE's general attitude to-ward the AAUP's unfair practice charges.

AAUP, realizing that it could not possibly win an elec-tion at that time, suddenly filed an unfair labor prac-tice charge against the state charging it with "collu-sion" with APSCUF. That the charge had no basis infact apparently did not bother AAUPthey only want-ed to stall the election in order to gain time so theycould build an organization.AAUP, having served its purpose by stalling the May10 election, later dropped its charges; PLRB re-scheduled the election for October 6.16

14 Letter from Martin J. Morand, Campaign Coordinator,APSCUF -PARE, tc Ernest P. Kline, Harrisburg, Pa., September 21,1971; letter from the Hon. Ernest P. Kline, Lieutenant Governor ofPennsylvania, to Martin J. Morand, Harrisburg, Pa., September 23,1971.

15National Education Association Higher Education Staff,"Memorandum: Background Stuff You Need to Know" (n.d.).

"Ibid., pp. 2-3.

13

The AAUP's "delay tactics" became a more critical issue forAPSCUF-PAHE after the implementation of the federal wage andprice freeze in August 1971. The campaign by APSCUF -PANE em-phasized that the delay in the election cost faculty members moneyby suggesting that a new contract could have been negotiated andby suggesting that a new contract could have been negotiated andimplemented before the wage and price controls were enacted.

The same sequence of events as portrayed by the AAUP wasnot altogether different from APSCUFPAHE's, though the detailsand conclusions were notably different.

In a letter to all faculty from the Pennsylvania State Collegeand University Council, the AAUP explained to the faculty its unfair practices charge.17 The letter stated that the charge was notmerely a matter of campaign rhetoric, but was founded in concreteevidence of collusion between APSCUF-PAHE and the Board of Pres-idents. AAUP indicated that these two groups had been "workingtogether to arrange matters to their mutual satisfaction, consciouslyexcluding all legitimate faculty spokesmen other than APSCUF,PSEA, and NEA representatives from their deliberations."18 TheAAUP's actual charge to the Pennsylvania Labor Relations Boardstated:

On or about March 31, 1971, the Personnel Commit-tee of the Board of State College and University Pres-idents met with the Association of Pennsylvania StateCollege and University Faculties (herein-after referredto as "APSCUF") to review administrative positionclassifications and salary range. This meeting was heldwithout notice to the charging party herein [AAUP)notwithstanding the fact that the charging party here-in had, on March 15, 1971, advised the PennsylvaniaLabor Relations Board of its intention to intervenein the representation petition filed by the APSCUF... .

In addition thereto the Board of State College andUniversity Presidents has bypassed the Complainantherein on other matters pertaining to wages, hoursand working conditions and attempted to deal directlywith APSCUF.

170pen Letter from the Pennsylvania State College and Uni-versity Council, AAUP, Harrisburg, Pa., May 4, 1971.

18Ibid., p. 1.14

APSCUF has sought to obtain authorization cardsdesignating it as a collective bargaining representativeby extracting from faculty members a commitment,in violation of the provisions of applicable law, thatsuch authorization card is irrevocable.By these and other acts the Board of State College andUniversity Presidents is guilty of dominating, pro-moting and fostering the formation and interests ofAPSCUF all of which activities re in violation ofSection 1201 (a) (2) of the Act. 9

The May 4 AAUP Council letter to the faculty indicated thatthe AAUP had attended several meetings with authorized membersof employer and employee groups, meetings at which all groups pre-sented their views on the status of department chairmen and the bar-gaining unit. No other matter, according to the AAUP letter, but thedepartment chairman issue was discussed at these meetings. Mostcritically, the issue of nonteaching professionals was not considered.Despite some progress, the AAUP had remained relatively convincedsince March that a spring election was no longer possible. The lettercontinued:

Early in April we began to hear assertions that the elec-tion could be held this Spring if only the chairmenquestion could be resolved. We were at a loss to under-stand what had happened to the other major ques-tions still unresolved, but did get the impression thatthe Commonwealth, that is to say, the Board of Pres-idents and the Office of Administration, were pre-pared to yield almost anything. We assumed the hear-ings would give us knowledge of the present positionsof the 0.A., the Presidents, AFT, and APSCUF -PANE,and give us an opportunity to do what we could tofacilitate agreement.

On Tuesday, April 27, the Board of Presidents re-versed its "unanimous" decision against inclusion ofdepartment chairmen. On Wednesday, the 28th, wewere asked to attend on Thursday, the 29th, not ahearing before the PLRB but an informal chat withthe Board. The invitation made clear that all points

19Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, The Pennsylvania LaborRelations Board, Charge of Unfair Practices, Case No. PE RA-C-1077-C, April 28, 1971.

15

at issue were believed to have been resolved by all par-ties concerned. We had not been consulted on a singlepoint of substance or of procedure at any time otherthan the one question of chairmen. We discoveredPSEA was announcing fur WE'dneStiti 4' that an electiondate had been set for May 12. We were, in short, in-formed that agents of the Cominomvealth had witting-ly or unwittingly acquiesced in a connived arrange-ment of the future'of our colleges in viol Lion of theletter and spirit of the law and if equity.2u

The unfair labor practice charge followed.

Regarding the countercharge that the AAUP's sole intent wasto delay the Action to gain time to organize a campaign, the AAUPdeclared such accusations to be untrue. They,wrote:" Those who areguilty of unfair labor practices are responsible for the issuance ofcharges, not the complainant."21 The AAUP was also satisfied thatthe delay of the election did not, in fact, cost the faculty of the statecolleges any money, either because of the wage and price freeze orotherwise. In a question and answer bulletin, the AAUP noted thataccording to Act 195 the budget of the public employer must be sub-mitted by February 1 in order for the legislature to take action onproposed expenditures negotiated in the agreement.22 Hence, nego-tiations taking place after February 2, 1971, could affect only the1972-73 academic year and after.

There was also some indication that the delay in the AAUP'sreturn of a signed agreement for an election between May 27 andJuly 14 was initiated by the AAUP desire for Commonwealth assur-ance about the future nature of employer-employee relationshipsbetween the state and the state colleges. The withdrawal of AAUP'scharges and the letter of agreement were forwarded from the AAUPstaff only Ore/ the AAUP had received a letter of confirmation ofcertain issues from the Office of Administration Director of LaborRelations. The Director's letter stated:

20Open Letter from the AAUP Council.211bid., pp. 1-2.22As the AAUP Sees it: "Questions and Answers Relating

to the Current Collective Bargaining Campaign in Pennsylvania,"September 24, 1971.

16

I. Representatives of the Commonwealth will avoidall discussions or meetings with any employeegroup to the exclusion of other interested groups,envisioning the execution of a collective bargain-ing agreement under Act 195.

2. Managerial personnel employed at the variousstate colleges and universities shall be instructedthat under no e; 'istances are they to solicit,encourage, or n .!ge membership in any or-ganization which seeks to represent employeesunder Act 195.

3, The Commonwealth will, of course, consult withall interested groups with respect to arrange-ments for the forthcoming representation elec-tion.

The foregoing is submitted in an attempt to resolveamicably the charges of unfair practices which havebeen filed. This is not to he consirued as an admissionot liability with respect to those charges or any Nota-tion of Jet I9.5, although the Commonwealth recog-nizes that AAUP considers the charges to have valid-ity.23

As indicated in the above letter, the AAUP's charges were neitherconfirmed nor denied, The AAUP seems to have been seeking someassurance that its perceptions of the demonstrated preference of theemployers for APSCUF-PAHE would cease.

The delay of the election from spring to fall 1971 was not theonly issue in the campaign, and the detail with which the issue is dis-cussed may seem excessive. However, the detail com.eys the extentto vcittch the ,R;octattons themselves viewed the importance of the

Whether or not the faculty members recognize the same urgen-cy is discussed later in this chapter.

Whet- campaign materials included flyers which proclaimedthe wear .ichi,,ivernents of each of the associations on behalf of thefaculty at the state colleges, and concurrent denials of the accomplish-ments of the competing associations. Both the AAUP and APSCUF-

23Letter from C. J. Zervanos, Director of Labor Relations,Office of Administration, Harrisburg, Pa., to Richard Kirschner,July 7, 1971.

17

PARE had "platforms" in which they indicated the positions theywould take during negotiations on behalf of the state college facultyin the areas of economic interests of the faculty, campus governance,and grievance procedures.24

Ferris has suggested that despite the statewide election andcampaign for the Pennsylvania State College bargaining agent, the ul-timate determination of the election winner was the result of localissues, and even, regretably, local personalities.

Chiefly, however, it was probably the individual effortsby individual campaign chairmen, and their ability toform effective campaign structures, whereby eachmember of a given college's faculty was contacted,talked to, and hopefully persuaded that delivered thevotes. 25

Ferris indicated that four issues, not all of which were clearly evi-denced in available campaign literature, were evident in the cam-paign

Which of the two organizations, AAUP or APSCUF,was the more "professional" organization?Was APSCUF dominated by NEA and PSEA (andtherefore, by implication, by public school teachersand administrators), as AAUP charged?Was AAUP dominated b / members from private col-leges and universities (who, by implication, would beinsensitive to the needs of the state colleges and uni-versity), as APSCUF charged?Which organization had superior resources and man-power to conduct effective professional negotiationsonce the campaign was over?26

24The Pennsylvania State College and Univers.iy Council,AAUP, "Proposed Goals of the AAUP in Collective Bargaining Nego-tiations" (n,d.); "APSCUF-PAHE Program for Progress," (Adoptedby APSCUF-PAHE Campus Representatives Meeting in Harrisburg,Pa., September 11-12, 1971).

25 Ferris, "The Progress of An Election."26lbid.

18

The Campaign As Viewed By the Faculty

Since the campaigns waged by the various election contendersare not necessarily related to the issues responsible for the voting be-havior of the electorate, the following three items were presented atthe end of the survey instrument used in this research:

In your own words, state as clearly and succinctly aspossible why you voted as you did in the election,What in your view were the major issues in the cam-paign?

What campaign promises, if any, had an effect on yourvote in this election?

Eighty-seven and a half percent of all respondents answered one ormore of these questions, with the percentage response of each cate-gory of voters being APSCUF-PAHE-87.8%, AAUP-86,2%, AFT-81.8%, and "No Representative"-98.2%. Since the reason for one'svote, the issues of the campaign, and campaign promises are poten-tially quite complimentary, many respondents either did not answerall three items, repeated answers under two or more items, or indi-cated as an issue what another suggested was a campaign promise.The results indicated an almost total interchangeability of responsesand items. For reporting purposes, responses were tallied into twocategories: (a) reasons for vote and (b) campaign issues and promi-ses. Because the campaign was primarily between two of the associa-tions, there was much greater variety in the answers of the AAUPand APSCUF-PAHE respondents than AFT and "No Representative"respondents. This is reflected in Table 2, which presents the re-sponses and the percent by voting behavior of respondents making aparticular or similar response.27

The results are not entirely unexpected. The AFT was mostlyconcerned about campaign issues and promises in the area of salariesand fringe benefits, and supported the AFT in recognition of its

27See Appendix A for Tables 2 27.

19

bargaining experience and ability. The supporters of the "No Repre-sentative" option indicated their dislike for unions, suggesting thatfaculty unionization is unprofessional and that the entire collectivebargaining agent campaign process was largely irrational. AAUPvoters responded most receptively to the overtures of the AAUP as aprofessional organization and were concerned about the nationalvisibility of their institutions and the greater expertise in nationalhigher education which could be afforded by the AAUP. Lastly, a

notable proportion of AAUP respondents (17.9%) viewed the elec-tion as a contest between liberal arts and education, college profes-sors and school teachers, academic scholarship and teacher training,and new faculty and old guard faculty. Two reasons given byAPSCUF-PAHE respondents were considerably less significant forother voters: (1) The association I voted for is the best for the indi-vidual member and the state colleges; it is the strongest and the mosteffective association and can be expected to do the most (36.3%);(2) the association I voted for has the most power, influence, and re-sources; in general, the most "political clout" for dealing with Harris-burg (35.4%).

I n April 1971, Flango and Brumbaugh undertook a survey ofstate college faculty attitudes toward collective bargaining.28 Thissurvey was conducted before the preliminary resolution of the depart-ment chairman issue, before the delay of the election, and before anyreal campaign was underway. In this survey, faculty were asked todesignate their preferred choice of a bargaining agent. The result notonly predicted the direction of the election outcome (APSCUF-PAHEfirst, AAUP second, "No Representative" third, and AFT fourth),but predicted a 56.3 percent vote for APSCUF-PAHE, compared to55.5 percent in the actual election. Flango and Brumbaugh also re-ported that the faculty respondents in the survey mentioned salary

28w. E. Flango and R. B. Brumbaugh, tocat-Cosmopotiran-ism: Empirical Re-Evaluation (Kutztown, Pa.: Educational De-velopment Center, 1972); idem, Preference for Bargaining Represen-tatire: Some Empirical Findings (Educational Development Center,1972).

20

as the single most important issue in the election. The present re-search also revealed salary as the most consistently recognized issueby respondents in all four voting categories; however, it was a major-ity issue only for AFT voters (see Table 2, number 18).

Some conclusions about the campaign are warranted at thispoint. Apparently, some of the campaign issues most significant tothe associations and their representatives had relatively little impactupon the election itself. Particular note is made of the very negligibleproportion of respondents who indicated that the AAUP's "delaytactics" and their promises late in the campaign of a 50 percent raisewere significant campaign factors. It is also significant to note thateven the issues most frequently stated as significant by the faculty(see Table 2) were designated significant by fewer than 50, in somecases 40, percent of the respondents in any one voting category.This may suggest that there was no overriding campaign issue for amajority of the voters. The issue of whether unionizing was an appro-priate or professional means of faculty participation had some im-pact. However, it seems appropriate to conclude from the campaignliterature, from the faculty perceptions of the campaign issues, andfrom Flango and Brumbaugh's findings, that the net effect of thecampaign was zero. Although some individuals may have been influ-enced by the associations' campaigns, the overall group feeling of thefaculty as expressed by the election results was not changed by thecampaign itself.

21

IllFaculty Characteristics and Support

for Collective Bargaining

Since collective bargaining made its first real inroads intohigher education governance in the mid-1960s, there has been consid-erable speculation about the "type" of faculty member who mightfavor faculty unionization. Most of this speculation concluded thatnewer and younger faculty members would be more apt to favor col-lective action. Several studies have assessed the degree of relationshipbetween faculty attitudes toward collective bargaining per se andvarious faculty demographic characteristics.

Previous Findings

Moore's study of faculty attitudes toward collective bargain-ing in ten Pennsylvania community colleges found that the most mil-itant supporters of collective negotiations were young, non-Protestant,males with politically liberal orientations) These men usually heldgraduate degrees, had teaching appointments in nonscience fields,lacked tenure, and occupied the lower academic ranks. Many alsohad previous high school teaching experience, former union member-ship, and were relatively dissatisfied with community college teach-ing. Not significantly related to attitudes about collective bargainingwere the number of years associated with the colleges and past or cur-rent membership in professional groups such as the American Asso-ciation of University Professors or the National Education Associa-tion.

Haehn conducted two studies of attitudes toward unionismand collective bargaining by California State College faculty. In hisfirst study he found that union supporters in higher education weremore typically from families which included clerical and skilledworkers; in addition, those with previous union experience were morelikely to support faculty unionization than those without previousunion experience.

I J. W. Moore, a' lttitudcs Toward C'olleetire Negotiations:Pennsylrania Community College Faculty (University Park, Pa.:Center for the Study of Higher Education, 1971).

22

Lastly, he found more support among Ph.D.s than among Ed.D.s.Haehn found only weak relationships between (a) age and unionsupport and (b) sex and union suport.2

In another study of faculty at the California State Colleges,Lane3 compared the characteristics of union (American Federation ofTeachers) and nonunion members. Lane found that union memberswere significantly younger, had less college teaching experience, loweracademic rank, and lower average salaries than nonunion members.While both union and nonunion members were more dedicated toteaching than to research, union members were more concerned withinstitutional prestige, held lower opinions of their college adminis-trators, and were more willing to leave their college. Lastly, unionmembers were more skeptical and critical of traditional faculty organ-izations and forms of collective action, and generally supportedstrike action,

Opdahl4 determined that opponents of collective bargainingat two state colleges, one each in Pennsylvania and New Jersey, tend-ed to be older, female, and in the higher faculty ranks. They weregenerally tenured, associated with the humanities or social sciences,and present or former members of the American Association ofUniversity Professors.

Although in his second study Haehn continued to analyze therelationship of favorable attitudes toward faculty unionization andsuch variables as academic discipline, academic rank, age, and viewson the goals of education, he made a significant step in realizing thatindividual attitudes were not wholly a factor of youth or lower aca-demic rank. He concluded:

2J. 0. Haehn, "A Study of Trade Unionism Among State Col-lege Professors" (Doctoral dissertation, University of California,Berkeley, 1969).

3 R , E. Lane, "Faculty Unionism in a California State CollegeA Comparative Analysis of Union Members and Non-Union Mem-bers" (Doctoral dissertation, University of Iowa, 1967).

4R. VV. Opdahl, Faculty Participation in Academie DecisionMaking in "Etncrging- State Collegec (Williamsport, Pa.: EconomicResearch Associates, 1971).

23

Analysis of the responses shows that the sup-port for collective bargaining is no longer restricted tocertain groups or cagegories within the ranks of StateCollege instructors. Professors in virtually every disci-plinary area, in almost each age group, at all rank lev-els, and of different educational and professional viewsall have increasingly come to endorse the necessity ofinstituting collective bargaining in the C.S.C. The pos-sibility that such widespread and broadly bas,ed sup-port is a temporary phenomenon is quite slim.

This study made it clear that it was no longer sufficient to analyzeattitudes pro and con unionization in some institutions. New insijhtcould be gained, perhaps, by examining many previously studied char-acteristics in the context of an actual election. In an ejection, thefaculty have the opportunity to object to unionization (voting forthe "No Representative" option), or to delineate further betweenthe various representative associations.

Characteristics and Voting Behavior

In the present study, thirteen faculty characteristics were ex-amined: academic rank, tenure, sex, age, employment status (full-or part-time), department chairmanship, academic discipline, teacher-training involvement, institution-wide and school or department fac-ulty committee service, and the number of years of service at theirpresent institution, at any or all Pennsylvania State Colleges, at high-er education institutions other than Pennsylvania State Colleges, andin secondary and/or elementary education institutions. In this study,statistical analysis necessitated the retention of null hypotheses thatthe following characteristics and voting behavior were independent ofone another: academic rank, sex, employment status, departmentchairmanship, and service on governance committees.6

5J. 0. Haehn, Surrey ofkircultt. and Administratire Alti-tudes on Odle(' lire Bargaining (Academic Senate of the CaliforniaState Colleges, 1970), p. 41.

6 Throughout this monograph, many of the tables presentingdata for which nonsignificant statistical results were produced werenot included. Anyone seeking a more thorough examination of alldata and statistical analysis, including the results of the many post

24

Tables 3.10 present the results of those comparisons produc-ing significant statistical results between voting behavior and severalfaculty characteristics. Because indepth analysis of these and suc-ceeding tables is provided elsewhere' (see footnote 6), discussion ofthe data will be somewhat general.

In the campaign literature, APSCUFPAHE leaders referred tothemselves as the "Young Turks of 1948." In 1948 the PennsylvaniaState Colleges were still known as teachers' colleges, and teachereducation was the primary interest of most faculty members. Thishistory is reflected in the composite profile of APSCUFPAHE vot-ers as developed from the research data. APSCUF -PANE voters weresignificantly older than other voters (Table 4) and, correspondingly,were more likely to hold tenure (Table 3). They were much morelikely to be trained in education (Table 5),7 (Of all APSCUFPAHErespondents, 43.5 percent were so trained.) This compared to 9.4percent, 15.9 percent, and 12.5 percent of the AAUP, AFT, and "NoRepresentative" respondents respectively. It logically follows thatAPSCUF-PAHE voters were also more involved than other voters inthe training of teachers and in teacher education (Table 6). Career-wise, APSCUF PAHE respondents indicated that they had servedlonger at institutions which reflected an emphasis upon elementaryor secondary education. APSCUF-PAHE voters had significantlymore experience teaching in elementary and/or secondary schools(Table 10). They had served significantly longer both at their presentState College (Table 7) and at one or mere of the Pennsylvania StateColleges (Table 8). At the same time, APSCUFPAHE voters had theleast amount of experience teaching in higher education institutionsother than the Pennsylvania State Colleges (Table 9).

hoc tests, is referred to: Gilmour Gregory Lozier, "Voting Patternsof Pennsylvania State College Faculty in a Collective NegotiationsElection" (Doctoral dissertation, The Pennsylvania State University,1973).

7See Appendix C for a list of those fields of study included ineach of the five broader categories: arts and humanities, education,social sciences, business, and sciences.

25

Almost all of the faculty characteristics data which producedsignificant results differentiated between APSCUF-PAHE voters andthe other respondents. When viewed together, these distinguishingcharacteristics academic discipline, involvement in teacher educa-tion, tenure, teaching experience, and agecreate an impression of theAPSCUF-PAHE voters as more in keeping with the teacher's collegetradition of the Pennsylvania State Colleges than AAUP, AFT, or "NoRepresentative" voters.

Profiles of the other voting blocks were not as distinctive.Some generalized information about each was revealed, however.8The "No Representative" voters were most unlike APSCUF-PAHEvoters. These faculty members had the most teaching experience inother colleges and universities (mean years = 4.27), and the leastexperience in elementary, secondary, and/or Pennsylvania State Col-lege teaching (mean years = 2.69). Better than half of the "NoRepresentative" voters were untenured, (52.7 percent), the only vot-ers for which this was true. Lastly, when compared with other voters,almost twice the percentage of "No Representative" voters (37.5percent) were in the sciences.

AAUP voters and AFT voters were more like than unlike oneanother. Slightly more than 60 percent of both the AAUP and AFTvoters were tenured (Table 3). Approximately 45 percent of eachwere in the arts and humanities; 25 percent of each were in the socialsciences (Table 5). Both groups spent slightly more than 50 percentof their time in teacher education (Table 6). Their years of experienceteaching in the Pennsylvania State Colleges was almost identical.

8A recurring problem during analysis was the frequent in-ability to produce significant differences for the AFT and "No Rep-resentative" voters when comparable differences involving APSCUF-PAHE and AAUP scores produced significant differences. This lackof significant differences is due to the small n for "No Rep" votersin comparison to the n for APSCUF-PAHE and AAUP, and the con-servativeness of the Scheff6 analog as a post hoc test. Appropriateconservatism was used in drawing conclusions about the AFT and"No Representative" respondents.

26

(AAUP mean years = 4.70; AFT mean years = 4.75). Only in theirother teaching experiences did AAUP voters particularly differ, withthe former more experienced in other colleges and universities, andthe latter more experienced in elementary and secondary schools(Tables 9 and 10). This last difference is understandable. As will benoted in a subsequent chapter, the AFT historically has been associa-ted primarily with developments in the lower schools. On the otherhand, AAUP tradition lies with faculty members in colleges and uni-versities. It is more difficult to speculate on the similarities betweenthese two blocks of voters, particularly in view of the low vote accu-mulation and, hence, small representation for the AFT in the election,One might conclude that their common group features led them toreject APSCUF-PAHE, while their uncommon features led them toopt for different associations.

27

IV

The Bargaining Unit

Determination of an Appropriate Unit

The importance of an appropriate bargaining unit is evidentfrom the attention given to this issue in the Pennsylvania StateCollege election. (Detailed discussion of the events surrounding thisdetermination is presented in Chapter II.) In cases where there isdisagreement between them, neither the faculty nor the admin-istration is free to determine the unit definition. The decision ismade by the National Labor Relations Board, for private institutions,and by the state labor relations board, for public institutions.

Higher education's experience with the unit determinationprocess has revealed several significant issues.1 One or more of theseissues can be at stake in any unit determination proceedings. Shoulda multi-campus system be regarded as a single unit, or should eachcampus be a separate unit? To what extent do full-time facultyshare a community of interest with short-term or part-time faculty?Should nonteaching, support professionals be included in a facultyunit? Is there enough of a distinctly separate sharing of interestamong certain professional segments of the faculty, e.g. law andmedical professors, to warrant establishment of separate bargainingunits? Finally, where aoes the dividing line between managementand labor fall? Are department chairmen or heads, or even deans,supervisors representing management, or spokesmen for their fac-ulty colleagues?

The resolution of these issues may have significant bearingupon personnel procedures, faculty governance structures, and cur-riculum development. The creation of large bargaining units acrosscampuses in state university systems in which every type of insti-tution from two-year agricultural schools to major universities are

1 R. K. Carr and D. K. Van Eyck, Collective BargainingComes to the Campus (Washington, D.C.: American Council onEducation, 1973).

28

included in the same unitand among teaching and nonteachingprofessionals within institutions has led to a homogenization of bothfaculty and other professional personnel in higher education insti-tutions,2 Although the decisions to alter faculty and nonfacultyalliances have been made to a large degree by the national and statelabor relations boards, to date no assessment has been made offaculty attitudes about whether to include nonfaculty members ina bargaining unit.

Faculty Attitudes Toward Their Unit

The present study was designed to determine (1) whethermembers of the Pennsylvania State College faculty bargaining unitagreed or disagreed with the unit definition as prescribed, and (2)whether those who disagreed favored a more inclusive or exclusiveunit. Overall, the respondents generally agreed with the definitionof the bargaining unit as defined by the Pennsylvania Labor RelationsBoard (see Table 11). Sixty-one and one half percent of all respon-dents agreed with the definition, while 38.5 percent disagreed, Thechi-square analysis of the distribution of respondents by voting be-havior did not produce a significant result. Of the twenty-six (50 per-cent) ''No Representative" respondents who disagreed with thedefinition of the bargaining unit, nine respondents indicated in a sub-:equent question that they preferred to have the bargaining unit de-fined as "none." Although not significantly different, the "No Rep-resentative" respondents were more likely to disagree with the definedbargaining unit than respondents who voted for the other threeoptions.

The respondents who disagreed with the bargaining unit asdefined (n = 435; 38.5 percent) were asked to check from a list ofpositions those positions which in their estimation should be in-cluded in the bargaining unit in addition to full-time tenured facultymembers.3 From the data obtained4 it was concluded that

2K. P. Mortimer and G. G. Lozier, Collectire Bargaining:Irrhlkcuicrts for Gmernance (University Park, Pa.: Center for theStudy of Higher Education, 1972).

3In the construction of the questionnaire it was considered tobe a foregone conclusion that full-time tenured faculty would be in-

29

APSCUF-PAHE, AAUP, and AFT respondents who disagreed withthy-' defined bargaining unit were inclined to favor inclusion of part-time faculty, librarians with faculty rank, untenured faculty, anddepartment chairmen. They would exclude librarians without fac-ulty rank. On the other hand, of those positions included in theactual unit as defined, the "No Representative" respondents dis-agreeing with the unit would retain only untenured faculty membersand librarians with faculty rank (excluding part-time faculty, depart-ment chairmen, and librarians without faculty rank).

Although it was not possible to list in the questionnaire allexisting titles and positions at the Pennsylvania State Colleges, fiveadditional broad categories of positions were provided for consider-ation by those respondents disagreeing with the defined unit: (a)directors of educational service units (e.g., Directors of StudentTeaching, Director of Educational Media); (b) deans or directors ofacademic divisions; (c) assistant or associate deans or directors ofacademic divisions; (d) directors of administrative units (e.g., Directorof Summer School, Director of Housing); (e) student personneladministrators and counselors. The respondents disagreeing with thebargaining unit tended to favor exclusion of these employees from thebargaining unit In each instance, only approximately one-fifth toone-third of those dissatisfied with the definition of a bargainingunit favored inclusion of a particular category of personnel in thebargaining unit. When combined with the results of these respondents'attitudes toward personnel actually included in the unit, the con-clusion is that tlisagreeme»t with the unit was indicative of a desirefin. a less inclusive rather than a more inclusive unit. However, therewere some significant differences between APSCUF-PAHE supporterattitudes and those of AAUP, AFT, and "No Representative" sup-porters. With 54.1 percent of the APSCUF -PANE respondents whodisagreed with the defined unit favoring inclusion of directors ofeducational service units, significant statistical contrasts were pro-duced in comparison with the respondents for the other options.

cluded in any appropriately defined bargaining unit for college oruniversity faculty.

4See footnote 6, Chapter all regarding the availability ofthis data.

30

A statistically significant greater proportion of APSCUF-PAHE re-spondents also favored inclusion of deans or directors of academicdivisions (29.3 percent) and assistant or associate deans (31.3 per-cent). (In the latter instances,, ,the only significant contrasts werebetween APSCUFPAHE and "No Representative. ")

A major issue in the APSCUF-PAHE' campaign was thecharge that the AAUP deliberately delayed the election from spring1971 to fall 1971 by filing an unfair labor practice charge againstAPSCUF-PAHE and the state, as discussed in Chapter II. It is con.jecturable that, because of the AAUP objections to a Board hearingwhich failed to give full consideration to the inclusion of additionalprofessional personnel in the unit, the AAUP supporters might haveexpressed more strongly than other voters their disagreement withthe unit as defined. They did not. There was no significant differencedetermined in the distribution over the four voting options of thoseagreeing or disagreeing with the defined unit.

However, by examining the voting behavior of the minority(38.5 percent) who disagreed with the bargaining unit, some signifi-cant differences in attitudes about the unit were discovered. TheAPSCUF-PAHE leadership had agreed to resolve the unit determination issue by accepting a relatively limited unit, while hoping foran early spring election. The results of the present research indicatedthat of the respondents who disagreed with the adopted unit def-inition, the APSCUF-PAHE voters were more likely to favor a

slightly more inclusive unit! In other words, the APSCUF-PAHE'shasty resolution of the unit issue (as a means to an early election)created a unit with which a sizeable minority of their own supporterswere not satisfied, these supporters being desirous of a more inclusiveunit. Although the respondents expressing dissatisfaction with theunit were a minority of all respondents, they do suggest the impor-tance of satisfactorily resolving the unit determination issue: 38.5percent of the bargaining unit is a significant dissident proportion.

31

V

The Contending Associations

Three national organizations have become the major con-tenders for representing faculty members in collective bargaining:the American Association of University Professors (AAUP), theNational Education Association (NEA), and the American Federationof Teachers (AFT), While the AFT has had a longstanding commit-ment to the unionization of teachers, the NEA and AAUP arerelative newcomers to the movement. All three groups are currentlycaught up in what has become an extremely determined drive bysome faculty members to unionize.1 As the three national associa-tions represented in the election for the Pennsylvania State Colleges,a brief discussion is presented of their historical involvement in col-lective bargaining and their respective positions on some of the issues.Although the NEA and AFT began talks on a proposed merger in thefall of 1973, the following discussion is directed at a description ofthe associations through 1971, the time of the election being studied.

The American Federation of Teachers (AFT)

Founded in 1916 and affiliated with the American Federationof Labor (AFT) in 1919, the union's major periods of growth wereduring the thirties, and after World War It. In the preamble to itsConstitution, the AFT stated:

We believe that the schools have failed of theirfullest attainment because of undemocratic admin-istration, adherence to tradition, and lack of respon-siveness to the needs of the community; and that theteachers must find the remedy, if it is to be found.

We believe that the teacher is one of the mosthighly productive of workers, and that the best inter-ests of the schools and of the people demand anintimate contact and effective cooperation betweenthe teachers and the other workers of the communityupon whom the future of democracy must depend.2

1The Chronicle of Higher Echicathm, August 27, 1973, p. 3.2The College Section of the Teachers Union, The College

32

The AFT's position on collective bargaining and the scope ofnegotiations has always been clear. Garbarino wrote: "The AFThas always adopted a forthright labor union stance, calling for exclu-sive recognition, adversary bargaining, third party arbitration, andaccepting the possibility of strike action, "3 The clarity of the AFT'sposition was also obvious to Marmion. He wrote: "The union position is clear. The primary thrust is for increased salaries, betterworking conditions, the abolition of traditional methods of promo-tion, tenure, individual salary negotiations, and for salary i::re-ments based on a merit formula."

In an article in The Chronide r)f Higher Education summari-zing the "state of the art" for the three national associations, it wassuggested that the AFT's major appeal has been its historical com-mitment to collective bargaining at a time when many universityfaculties no longer perceive unionism as contrary to professionalism.Because the AFT is not a neophyte to the issues of unionization, thepoint can be argUed that the intricacies of bargaining and contractadministration are more likely to be understood and promoted bythe national AFT organization and its network of state and local ,

chapters. In addition, the AFT has always been a "teachers only"organization. Administrators have not been permitted membershipin the AFT; hence, the AFT has theoretically remained under thedirection of its clientele. However, the major appeal of the AFTitsexperience with labor concepts and principleshas also been itsmajor weakness. While many faculty members have now acceptedunionism, they have remained skeptical of the AFT's affiliationwith organized labor in general, with the AFL -C10 in particular,and with AFT's support for the strike.5 Despite this skeptical atti-tude, by May 1973, the AFT had achieved bargaining agent status

Teacher and tlw Trade Union (New York: Local 5 of the AmericanFederation of Teachers, 1936), p. 25.

3J. W. Garbarino, "Precarious Professors: New Patterns ofRepresentation," Industrial Relations 10 (February 1971): 1-20.

4H. A. Marmion, "Unions and Higher Education," Edu-cational Record 49 (Winter 1968): 44.

5The Chronick, of Higher Education, May 10, 1971, pp. 1and 6.

33

at sixty-three colleges and universities--eighteen four-year institutionsand forty-five two-year institutions.6

The National Education Association (NEA)

Doherty and Oberer have stated that the AFT is primarily anemployee organization which from the beginning concentrated onconditions of employment.? By contrast, they indicated, the Nation-al Education Association (NEA), founded in 1857 as the NationalTeachers Association, has been primarily a professional association.The Association was organized to "elevate the character and advancethe interests of the profession of teaching, and ... promote the causeof popular education in the United States."8

Prior to 1961, the NEA was opposed to collective negotia-tions, sanctions, and strikes. The 1962 Representative Assembly ofthe Association was a turning point for the NEA as it passed itsfirst resolutions on "Professional Negotiations" and "ProfessionalSanctions."9 Since 1962, deletions and amendments regarding pro-fessional negotiations have been made at every annual meeting,resulting in a substantial change in the Association's position."The nature and extent of this transition prompted Kleingartner towrite that the NEA's shift indicated that "professional associations,often accused of structural rigidity and of wearing ideologicalblinders, do in fact have the capacity to adapt to the changing needsand situations of the professions they represent."11

6The Cluimic le a] Higher Education, April 30, 1973, p. 4.7 R. E. Doherty and W. E. Oberer, Teachers, School hoards

and Odlectire Bar,oining: A (hanging of the Guard (Ithaca, N.Y.:New York State School of Industrial and Labor Relations, 1967).

8E. B. Wesley, NEA: The First Hundred Years (New York:Harper & Brothers, 1957), pp. 23-24.

9National Education Association, Addresses and Proceedings.vol. 100 (Washington, D. C.: National Education Association, 1962).

10For a review of the changes made in NEA attitude towardprofessional negotiations, see J. P. Muir, "The Strike As a ProfessionalSanction: The Changing Attitude of the National Education Associ-ation," Labor law Journal 19 (October 1968): 615-27.

1 1A. Kleingartner, "Professional Associations: An Alternative

34

Changes have occurred within the internal organization ofthe NEA as well in 1967. Following the disassociation of the Amer-ican Association for Higher Education (due in part to the NEA'schanged attitudes toward unionization), the Association establishedthe National Faculty Association section for junior and communitycollege faculties. In 1969, two more sections were created for collegeand university facultythe National Society of Professors and theNational Association for College and University Professors. Thesesections were incorporated under the National Higher EducationAssociation division of NEA.

As a result of its changing attitude, the NEA has moved intothe forefront of educational unionization, and has also becomethe national leader in terms of both faculty and institutions repre-sented. As of May 1973, NEA affiliates were representing facultyat eighty-six two-year institutions, including the twenty campusMinnesota State Junior College System. NEA affiliates had obtainedbargaining status at eighteen four-year institutions, including' severalmulti-campus systemsCity University of New York (19), the Penn-sylvania State College system (14), the Nebraska State Collegesystem (4) and the State University of New York (26)) 2

Kleingartner has suggested that the edge in bargaining statuswhich the NEA currently holds can be explained by three advantageswhich the professional association has had over the union: (1) theprofessional association is more "respectable"; (2) the associationcan offer a broader professional scope, while the union is verylimited in scope; and (3) the association already has a clear edgein membership.13 On the other hand, the biggest problem for theNEA in its college-level organizing activities has been its image as anassociation for' elementary and secondary teachers. The NEA alsohas had an image problem created by the fact that the NEA sup-port and membership in four-year institutions appears to be concen-

to Unions?" Colleetire Negotiations for Public and ProfessionalEmployees, ed. R. T. Woodsworth and R. B. Peterson (Glenview,HI.: Scott, Foresman & Co., 1969), p. 295.

12The Chronicle of Higher Education, April 30, 1973, p. 4.13Kleingartner, "Professional Associations,", pp. 299-300.

35

trated in colleges of education. Furthermore, because the NEA haspermitted school principals and other administrators into its mem-bership, the Association has been subject to charges that the NEA isunder the control of administrators and not the teachers whom itis committed to represent.

The American Association of University Professors (AAUP1

Since its founding in 1915, the American Association of Uni-versity Professors (AAUP) has concentrated its energies and effortsin protecting academic freedom and in developing the occupation ofcollege teaching into a profession closely modeled on medicine andlaw.14 For years, the AAUP was the prime defender of academicfreedom and faculty rights on campuses throughout the country.Its effectiveness lay in enlisting the cooperation of college and uni-versity administrations in amending administrative positions andattitudes toward academic freedom, due process, and faculty par-ticipation in institutional governance. Throughout its entire history,and in all its operations, the AAUP has regarded itself as a profes-sional association, and its accomplishments as the results of powersof persuasion and not coercion. While the AAUP, wrote Davis, "hasmaintained a professional view of professional life, it has constantlyapplied its principles and its experiences to the situation at hand."15Brown noted that with the introduction of collective bargaininginto the governance processes of higher education a debate de-veloped within the organization between "those who wish it tocontinue as primarily a professional organization, and others whowish it to be a militant organization working for economic ob-jectives."16 Between 1966 and 1972, the AAUP went through a

philosophical reasscssment similar to that experienced by the NEAbetween 1962 and 1968.

1 4W. P. Metzger, "Origins of the Association: An Anniver-sary Address," 11 A UP Bulletin 51 (Summer 1965): 229-37.

15B. H. Davis, "Unions and Higher Education: AnotherView," Educational Record 49 (Spring 1968): 141.

16R. C. Brown, "Professors and Unions: The Faculty Senate:An Effective Alternative to Collective Bargaining in Higher Edu-cation?" William .and Mary Law Review 12 (Winter 1970): 280.

36

Of the three national associations, the AAUP probably hashad the most aesthetic appeal to faculty members concerned abouttheir statu s professionals.17 It has the largest college and uni-versity Jurultr membership. However, through 1971 the AAUP hadthree problems which considerably impeded its ability to winelections.

How does the association retain its commit-ment to shared authority among all constituents ofthe academic world in academic governance, whileat the same time organizing along the essentiallyadversarial lines of labor versus management? . . .

How can the association compete with otherorganizations when it does not admit some non-academic staff members who are part of the bar-gaining unit? ...

How can the association pre.uve its role asarbiter of sensitive issues of academic freedom andtenure and at the same time bargain collectively?

The problem which the AAUP would face in the late 1960swas predicted by Strauss:

My thesis here is that the AAUP, like many otheroccupational associations, suffers from a mixture ofobjectives and a tension between economic goals andthose which are more purely professional, evenaltruistic, in nature.19

Noting the limited role of the AAUP on campuses wherefaculty self-government was well-established, and the increasing roleof politicians and budget bureau technicians as educational decisionmakers, Strauss continued:

Thus, the trend will be to make the AAUP more likea civil service associationthough with a strong em-phasis on academic freedom. Where other govern-mental employees engage in collective bargaining,AAUP chapters will probably engage in collectivebargaining, too.20

17 The Chronicle of higher Education, May 10, 1971,pp. 1 and 6.

18Ibid., p. 6.19George Strauss, "The AAUP as a Professional Occupation

Association," huh/stria/ Mations 5 (October 1965): 128.37

In May 1972, the AAUP acted to counter some of thearguments of its critics. The delegates at the Association's annualconvention voted quite decisively to amend the Association's position toward collective bargaining. The revised position stated;

The Association will pursue collective bargain-ing as a major additional way of realizing the Assoelation's goals in higher education, and will allocatesuch resources and staff as are necessary for thevigorous selective development ,of this activity beyondpresent levels.21

In order to assist development of this new position, the conventionvoted at the same meeting to amend the article of the Association'sConstitution dealing with membership, The following amendmentpassed: "Kny professional appointee included in a collective repre-sentation unit with the faculty of an approved institution may alsobe admitted to Active membership in the Association.22

By May 1972, the AAUP had been recognized as the bargain-ing agent at only ten institutions.23 Only one year later, followingthe change in the Association's position on collective bargaining,the number of institutions had doubled to twenty.24 By October1973, the AAUP had won several more elections, bringing totwenty-five the number of college and university faculties representedby the Association as exclusive bargaining agent.25

201.oia pp. 139-40.21 Fifty-eighth Annual Meeting, ;1A UP Bulletin 58 (1972):

22Ibid., p. 136.23The Chronicle of Higher Educatimi, May 15, 1972, p. 2.24 The Chronicle oj fligher Education, April 30, 1973, p. 4.2 511ighur Education and National Affairs (Washington, D.C.:

American Council on Education, October 19, 1973), p. 5.

135,

38

Several concluding points can be made about these threenational associations. First, the changing attitudes of each of thethree associations toward collective bargaining have been influencedby each other's activities and successes. The NEA's reversal of posi-tion was influenced by AFT successes at the elementary and second-ary levels. The AFT's renewed commitment to collective bargainingin higher education was a reaction to NEA achievements inorganizing college and university faculties. As the AAUP realizedthat its role as representative of the professional interests of facultymembers in higher education was being challenged by the AFT andthe NEA, it, too, made a commitment to this new means of facultyrepresentation.

Historically, the organizational self-concepts have not beenthe same for the three contending associations. Nevertheless, allthree have evolved to a point in which their programs reflect mutualconcerns and activities. Indicative of this trend is the merger of theNew York State AFT and NEA organizations. This combined asso-ciation currently represents all faculty in the State University ofNew York system, the City University of New York system, andthe majority of community colleges in New York, plus severalprivate institutions. Despite a moratorium imposed on such mergersby the parent association (NEA, meetings are being held at thenational level to discuss the potential of a complete merger ofthe two groups.

Voting Behavior and the Associations

Before proceeding with the discussion of the results ofquestionnaire items dealing with the associations, an additionalpoint about the NEA items dealing with the associations shouldbe noted. One of the NEA's major strengths has been its state andlocal affiliates. APSCUF has been a Pennsylvania State Collegefaculty organization for many years; and, more recently, throughits present affiliation with PANE and PSEA, it became the NEAaffiliate for the Pennsylvania State College and University faculty.Because of the individual identities retained by both APSCUF-PAHE and the NEA, personal impressions by State College facul-

39

ty members of APSCUF-PAHE in this election may reflect attitudesas much toward this local organization as toward the nationalassociation,

The questionnaire utilized in this research requested thatrespondents indicate which of the three associations seeking agencystatus in the election best exemplified eight characteristics, ordescriptors, presented to them, The intent of the question was toascertain if all faculty held similar attitudes toward the associationsregardless of how they voted. Certain assumptions were also madebeforehand about which of the national associations best fit eachof the descriptors. These assumptions, presented as follows, werebased on the review of the literature and history of the asso-ciations:

Most prestigious: AAUPMost union-oriented: AFTMost professionally-oriented: AAUPHistorical commitment to collective bargaining: AFTGreatest national visibility: AAUPGreatest visibility within Pennsylvania: APSCUF-PAHE (NEA)Least likely to resort to a strike: AAUPGreatest lobbying potential in Harrisburg: APSCUFPAHE

(NEA)The results for these eight items are presented in Tables 12-

19. For the descriptor "most prestigious" (Table 12), a significantdifference existed between the percent of APSCUF-PAHE respond-ents who indicated that their association was the "most prestigious"(34.5 percent) and the percentage of voters for the other threeoptions (AAUP: 1.6 percent; AFT: 2.3 percent; and "No Repre-sentative": 4.2 percent). Better than 95 percent of the respondentsfor the other three options indicated the AAUP as their choice of"most prestigious," while only 643 percent of the APSCUF-PAHEvoters felt that way.

Ninety-one and one half percent of all respondents agreedthat the AFT was the "most union-oriented" of r.i a:,:ociations (Table13). Concurrently, fewer than 10 percent of We respondents be-lieved that either APSCUF-PAHE (7.7 percent) or AAUP (0.7percent) was the "most union-oriented" association.

40

For a majority of respondents the "most professionally-oriented" association (Table 14) was the AAUP (64.4 percent).Once again, significant differences existed between the APSCUFPAHE respondents and respondents of the other three votingoptions in the extent to which APSCUF-PAHE was consideredthe "most professionally-oriented" of the associations. Slightlymore than 56 percent of the APSCUF-PAHE respondents indicatedthat their association was more "professionally-oriented" than wasthe AAUP.

Sixty nine and four-tenths percent of the respondents in-dicated that the AFT was the association "most historically com-mitted to collective bargaining" (Table 15). A significantly largerpercent of APSCUF-PAHE voters considered APSCUF-PAHE to bethe "most historically committed to collective bargaining" (30.9percent for APSCUF-PAHE respondents, compared to 13.5, 2.3,and 17.0 percent for AAUP, AFT, and "No Representative"respectively), The difference in the percentage of AAUP respondentsand AFT respondents who indicated that APSCUF-PAHE is the"most historically committed to collective bargaining" was alsosignificant. Significant contrasts also revealed that the AFT respond-.ents were more inclined than respondents of the other associationsto consider their association, the AFT, to be the "most historicallycommitted" of the associations to collective bargaining (95.5 per-cent for AFT respondents, compared to 62.9, 76.5, and 76.6 per-cent for APSCUF-PAHE, AAUP, and "No Representative" re-spectively).

The greatest diversity in faculty attitudes toward then,three associations occurred with the descriptor "greatest nationalvisibility" (Table 16).26 Overall, the respondents answefed asfollows: APSCUF-PAHE (26.6 percent); AAUP (54.5 percent);AFT (18.9 percent). A significantly greater percent (36.1) of

260ne could raise questions about the validity of this itemsince it may have been affected by the differing bases for answer-ing it. For example, the question could be raised whether thisnational visibility was intended to be visibility to the generalpopulace, only to educators, or solely to higher education personnel.

41

APSCUF-PAHE voters (21.1 to 29.8 percentage points greater)considered their association to have had the greatest nationalvisibility. At the same time, a significantly greater percent of AAUPrespondents (66.6 perce,lt) and of AFT respondents (43.2 percent)indicated that their particular association had greater nationalvisibility than APSCUF-PAHE (47.9 percent for AAUP and 16.0percent for AFT).

The greatest percentage of respondents (91.1 percent) in-dicated that APSCUFPAHE was the association with the "greatestvisibility within Pennsylvania" (Table 17). A significantly greaterproportion of APSCUF-PAHE respondents (97.0 percent) thanAAUP respondents (81.7 percent) indicated that APSCUF-PAHEwas the association with the "greatest visibility within Pennsyl-vania." Correspondingly, a greater percentage of AAUP respondentsbelieved that either the AAUP (13.0 percent) or the AFT (5.3percent) had greater visibility within Pennsylvania than didAPSCUF-PAHE (1.1 percent for AAUP and 1.9 percent for AFT).

Only four percent of the respondents from each votingcategory indicated that the AFT was the association "least likelyto strike" (Table 18). General opinion from all respondents wasthat the AAUP was "least likely to strike" (67.6 percent). How-ever, a significantly greater percentage of APSCUF-PAHE re-spondents (36.6 percent) than AAUP (17.0 percent) or "NoRepresentative" (8.3 percent) respondents indicated that APSCUF-PAHE was the association "least likely to strike." At the sametime, a significantly lesser proportion of APSCUF-PAHE respond-ents (59.1 percent) than AAUP (78.7 percent) or "No Repre-sentative" (87.5 percent) respondents indicated that the AAUPwas the association "least likely to strike."

The last descriptor presented was "greatest lobbying po-tential in Harrisburg" (Table 19). Eighty-seven and one half percentof all respondents designated APSCUF-PAHE as most indicative ofthis descriptor. A significantly greater proportion of APSCUF-PAHE respondents (98.0 percent) than either AAUP (73.0 percent)or AFT (61.4 percent) respondents considered APSCUF-PAHE as

42

the association with the "greatest lobbying potential." At the sametime, a significantly greater proportion of AAUP respondents (12.2percent) than of either APSCUF-PAHE (0.2 percent) or AFT(0.0 percent) respondents regarded the AAUP as the associationwith the "greatest lobbying potential." Only one APSCUF-PAHEand no AFT respondents indicated that this descriptor was mostindicative of the AAUP.

There was a very high measure of consistency between therespondents' attitudes toward the three associations and the as-sumptions regarding which associations best exemplified the de-scriptors. Variations which did occur were created most frequentlyby faculty members who regarded the association they voted foras more representative of the descriptor than the associationidentified in the assumptions. In general, the most persistentlydetermined statistical significances produced by the data werebetween the attitudes of the APSCUF-PAHE respondents andvoters favoring the other voting options. It was already notedabove that respondents as a whole recognized the three associationsparticipating in the election as they might be perceived from ageneral knowledge of their history and their professional platforms.Yet a significant proportion of APSCUF-PAHE respondents con-sistently held different attitudes toward such key descriptors as"most professional," "most prestigious," "historical commitmentto collective bargaining," and "greatest national visibility." Thedifferences in these attitudes might be accounted for by any numberof reasons, including a misinterpretation by some of the generallyaccepted images of the associations, a reflection of the campaignsof the associations, a refusal to recognize other associations forwhat they are, and/or a firm belief in the opinions expressed.Whatever the reason, it is suggested here that these differences inattitudes reflected the eventual difference in the decision of theserespondents to vote for APSCUF-PAHE and to award APSCUF-PANE the victory in the election.

43

VI

The Scope of Negotiations

The scope of items negotiated and the scope of the contractare not the same. Everything that is negotiated does not necessarilybecome a part of the agreement. Hence, faculty attitudes towarddetermining an appropriate scope of negotiations is a significantissue,

The Issues

The American Association for Higher Education report onacademic governance noted five broad categories of issues whichshould be the legitimate concern of the faculty: (1) educationaland administrative policies, i.e., shaping the policies by which themission of the institution is defined and carried out; (2} personneladministration, encompassing promotion and tenure, appointments,course assignments, work schedules, work loads, the allocation ofoffice space, secretarial help, and grievance procedures; (3) eco-nomic issuesresource availability, resource allocation to majorbudgetary categories, distribution of funds for salaries and fringebenefits, and individual compensation; (4) public issues and theinstitution; and (5) procedures for faculty representation) How-ever, the fact that these have all been issues of legitimate concernto faculty members has not, a priori. made them negotiable issuesfor collective bargaining.

The Pennsylvania Public Employee Relations Act specifiesin Article VII, Section 701 that:

Collective bargaining is the performance ofthe mutual obligation of the public employer and therepresentatives of the public employees to meet at

1 AAHE-NEA Task Force on Faculty Representation andAcademic Negotiations, Facii/ti. Participation in .1cadeinic Govern-ance (Washington, D.C.: American Association for Higher Edu-cation, 1967), pp. 27-30.

44

reasonable times and confer in good faith with respectto wages, hours and other terms and cyniditions ofemployment (emphasis added).2

This definition of the scope of bargaining is typical of laborlegislation. The variability in the way in which the phrase "otherterms and conditions of employment" may be interpreted indicatesthe problem in defining the appropriate scope of negotiations inhigher education. The phrase "terms and conditions of employ-ment" is particularly vague and has caused Finkin to write:' "Thetroublesome question is what is a term or condition of employmentfor college and university faculty members."3 Ray Howe has provid-ed the following answer: "I know of no practical limits upon thenegotiability of any items affecting the college. The determination ofwhat is negotiable is itself negotiable."

Ronald Brown has questioned whether there can be a

separation of academic from nonacademic issues in higher educationnegotiations. Brown noted that "There is a somewhat reflexivecompulsion to label educational policies as academic issues andeconomic considerations as nonacademic issues."5 Although mattersof educational policy and academic freedom have been traditionallyreserved for existing methods of faculty governar,ce such as facultysenates, there is nothing to preclude them from the negotiatingprocess, Once a bargaining agent has been certified, a process cancome into play which absorbs traditional areas of faculty authorityinto the bargaining process. Ralph Brown described these develop-ments as follows:

2Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Laws of the General As-scnibl,t, Act 195--The Pennsylvania Public Employee Relations Act,1970 (1), Article VII, Section 701.

3M, W. Finkin, "Collective Bargaining and University Govern-ment," Wisconisin Law Review 1971 (No. 1): 133.

4S. Elam and M. H. Moskow, eds., Employment Relations inHigher Education (Bloomington, Incl.: Phi Delta Kappa, 1969), p. 90.

5R. C. Brown, "Professors and Unions: The Faculty Senate:An Effective Alternative to Collective Bargaining in Higher Educa-tion?" William and Mary Law Review 12 (Winter 1970): 320.

45

First the matter of salaries is linked to thematter of workload; workload is then related directlyto class size, class size to range of offerings, and rangeof offerings to curricular policy. Dispute over classsize may also lead to bargaining over admissionspolicies. This transmutation of academic policy intoemployment terms is not inevitable, but it is quitelikely to occursIs the decision to bargain over academic matters, if they can

be distinguished from purely economic issues, an inherent managerialpreogative? According to Smith, this is improbable.

Private sector unions generally do not quarrelwith the position that the ability of a private firmto determine such matters as the kind and quality ofits products or services is and should remain a mana-gerial prerogative. However, there are some categoriesof employees in the public sector who, by virtue ofthe nature of their occupations and professional in-terests, might claim to have a negotiable concernwith the "mission" or goals of particular publicagencies. For example, public school teachers mayreasonably assert that they have a legitimate in-terest not only in compensation and "conditions"of employment, but also in the fundamental edu-cational policies to be followed in a school system.?

Brown has indicated that typical state enabling legislationhas been patterned after the National Labor Relations Act pre-scribing an obligation to bargain collectively over "wages, hours, andother terms and conditions of employment." Brown suggested thatsince the legislation has not chosen to distinguish between inherentmanagerial rights and other terms and conditions of employment,the matter must ultimately be determined by the courts, except ininstances in which management agrees to negotiate on particularissues of supposedly managerial prerogative not required or pro-hibited by law. Citing a Wisconsin school case in which the courts

6R. S. Brown, Jr., "Collective Bargaining in Higher Edu-cation," Michigan Law Review67 (February 1969): 1075.

7 R. A. Smith, "State and Local Advisory Reports on PublicEmployment Labor Legislation: A Comparative Analysis," Mich-igan Law Review 67 (March 1969): 908.

46

determined that the school board had to negotiate over a changein the school calendar, Brown concluded:

The lesson to be learned from this case isthat the courts in all likelihood will not hesitate todefine educational policies and other non-mandatorysubjects of bargaining by interpreting the terms relat-ed to wages, hours, and conditions of employment. Aquestion which remains unanswered is whether, ab-sent legislative specification, courts will interpret theabove terms narrowly or broadly in determining therelationship between educational policies and econom-ic conditions; and whether the courts will continueto analogize NLRB cases with those involving teachersand professors,8

Because the scope of negotiations is by no means limitednor readily definable, it is an issue to be settled in each set ofnegotiations. For this study, six broad areas of the scope ofnegotiations were considered: financial benefits, personnel policy,academic freedom, conditions of employment, faculty participationin governance, and institutional goals determination. The objectivefor this study was to consider the relationship between fdcultyvoting behavior and their desire for a broad or limited scope ofnegotiations.

Voting Behavior and the Scope of Negotiations

Three fairly lengthy questions in the survey instrumentdealt with the problem of the scope of negotiations. The firstquestion requested respondents to indicate their degree of satis-faction or dissatisfaction with the six broad issues listed above byranking the issues from one (most satisfied) to six (least satisfied).A second question requested respondents to rank the same sixissues as negotiable or nonnegotiable with rankings from one (shouldbe negotiated) to six (should not be negotiated). The third question,presented later in this chapter, dealt with the scope of negotiations.

8R. C. Brown, "Professors and Unions," pp. 325-26.

47

There was little difference in the satisfaction and/or dis-satisfaction of the voters for the various options in the election asindicated by their ranking of the six issues (Table 20). These rankingsindicate that the faculty at the state colleges are relatively less satisfiedwith general financial benefits (3.87) and with the extent of theirparticipation in the affairs of the state colleges (i.e., the determinationof institutional mission (4.31), faculty personnel policies (3.82), andfaculty participation in governance (3.74)1 than with the generalconditions of employment (3.04) or with academic freedom (2.22).Although there was some variability in the order in which the respond-ents of the various voting options ranked these six issues as seen inTable 20, the results of the follow-up analyses presented in Table 21indicated that for the most part this variability was nonsignificant.9

There was more variance in the attitude of all facultyrespondents regarding which issues should be negotiated (Table 22)than there was over which issues were providing the faculty withmore or less satisfaction. (It should be noted that faculty wereasked whether they thought these issues should be negotiated,and not whether they were legally negotiable.) Whereas on theformer item there was only about a range of two points (from2.22 to 4.31) on a six-point scale from the "most satisfied"issue, the rankings for which issues should be negotiated rangedfrom 1.86 to 4.90. The issue with which all faculty members weremost dissatisfied- determination of institutional mission (was alsothe issue which was considered least negotiable (4.90). Academicfreedom, with which there seemed to be considerable satisfaction, alsowas generally regarded as nonnegotiable (4.06). Three of the issues-

9Evaluation of a forced-choice rank question must be care-fully made. In order to force the respondents to discriminate be-tween the six issues, they were asked to rank them from most toleast satisfied. However, ranking an item as least satisfying may notin every instance indicate total dissatisfaction with that issue. Therelativeness with which distinctions were made between issues withwhich there was more satisfaction and issues with which there wasless satisfaction must be analyzed carefully.

48

financial benefits (1.86), conditions of employment (2.90), andfaculty personnel policies (3.24)were generally regarded as negotia-ble. As a whole, there was little discrepancy in the rankings of theseissues by the respondents for any of the four voting options(Table 23).

Since in both the satisfaction and negotiability items theorder of ranking was so consistently similar for respondents ofeach of the voting options, the more important factor for thesetwo questions was the overall difference in the satisfaction with theissues and their negotiability. As might be expected, financial bene-fits, for which more dissatisfaction than satisfaction was expressed,was also the most negotiable issue. At the other end of the scale,academic freedom, for which there was the most satisfaction, wasranked as less negotiable than four of the other five issues. Theone striking comparison between these two questionnaire items waswith regard to the issue designated as "determination of institutionalmission." Respondents were least satisfied with this issue, yet theyalso regarded it as least negotiable. The significance, or lack there-of, of this contrast was more interpretable from the third question-naire item dealing with the scope of negotiations. Hence, furtherdiscussion of the "determination of institutional mission" issue istemporarily reserved.

In -April 1971 the state and the associations agreed tonegotiate certain issues locally, i.e., to give special considerationsto local conditions at the various state college campuses and tonegotiate other issues on a statewide basis, although the state sub-sequently reneged on this agreement. However, in anticipation thatstate and local negotiations would occur, faculty were requestedto indicate not merely whether subissUes of the six broader issuesnoted above were either negotiable or nonnegotiable, but if nego-tiable whether bargaining should be conducted statewide or locally.Twenty-three subissues were provided:

A. Financial Benefits1. Salary2. Fringe benefits

49

B. Faculty Personnel Policies1. Faculty appointment2. Promotion3. Tenure4. Procedures for faculty evaluation5. Grievance procedures

C. Academic Freedom1. Academic freedom clause

D. Conditions of Employment1. Teaching load2. Class size3. Sabbatical leave4. Office space and equipment5. Research grants policy6. Parking regulations

E. Faculty Participation in Governance1. Selection of department chairmen2. Selection of deans3. Selection of presidents4. Committee assignments5. Creating and dissolving committees

F. Determination of institutional Mission1. Representation for state master planning2. Admissions standards3. Institutional orientation (e.g., teacher edu-

cation, liberal arts, graduate program)

Because of the number of tables involved in presenting thedata for these twenty-three items, a more general presentation isprovided here.1°

In terms of their attitudes toward the negotiability of thesesubissues either locally or statewide, there was little notable dif-ference between the attitudes of APSCUF-PAHE and AAUP voters,with the vast majority of both groups favoring the negotiability ofevery subissue. The primary difference for AFT respondents wasthat in very few instances did even one AFT voter believe an issuewas nonnegotiable. Only the "No Representative" respondentsconsistently rejected negotiation for most of the issues listed.

10See Chapter III, footnote 7, about the availability ofthis data and for a more detailed discussion of the data.

50

The Pennsylvania State College faculty in general favored abroad scope of negotiations. They also indicated that some of theissues presented should have been negotiated in consideration oflocal conditions. For example, a majority of respondents voting forone of the three associations indicated that the following issuesshould be negotiated locally: faculty appointment and promotion,procedures for faculty evaluation, office space and equipment,parking regulations, selection of department chairmen, selection ofdeans, committee assignments, creating and dissolving committees,curriculum development, and institutional orientation. As notedabove, negotiations were conducted during the actual bargaining.The agreement which ultimately was signed between the Common-wealth of Pennsylvania and APSCUF-PAHE applied equally to allState Colleges, and contained no local provisions) 1

Of all the subissues presented to questionnaire recipients,only threeparking regulations, committee assignments, and creatingand dissolving committeeswere thought to be nonnegotiable bymore than 20 percent of the respondents; in no case was the responsegreater than 25 percent. When comparing these responses with therankings of negotiable issues discussed earlier, it is apparent thatthose broad issues which were ranked at the nonnegotiable end ofthe scale in the forced ranking should really be regarded as lessnegotiable rather than as nonnegotiable. Accordingly, the apparentcontrast between the lack of satisfaction with the "determinationof the institutional mission" of the State Colleges and the negotiability of this issue (see discussion earlier in this chapter) wasnot as significant as may have at first been interpreted. In thesubsequent questionnaire item, all of the institutional mission sub-issues (admissions standards, curriculum development, representationfor state master planning, and institutional orientation) were' regard-ed as negotiable by most of the State College faculty.

11 Collective Bargaining Agreement Between APSCUF-PAHEand Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, November 2, 1971 to August31, 1974.

51

VII

The Strike and Collective Bd; gaining

Professionalism

For many college and university faculty members, collectivebargaining has been regarded as inappropriate when applied to theconduct of faculty-administration relationships. This opinion is

founded largely on the belief that the faculty member is a scholarand a professional who has "allegiance to a particular set of beliefs,ideas, and convictions concerning the conditions under which one'swork is or should be performed.° Central to this concept of pro-fessionalism is the faculty member's individual autonomy. Thisautonomy is derived from the belief that a faculty member's tech.nical knowledge, skills, and experience, as they relate to his academicdiscipline, should permit him to determine for himself the conditionsunder which he will work and the problems with which he willdeal.2

Academic matters, including self-government, are the facultymember's primary concern as a professional. Economic issues, onthe other hand, emphasize the employer-employee relationship offaculty members and administrations. Because professionals do nottypically regard themselves as employees, many faculty reject col-lective bargaining and its concentration on economic issues as in-appropriate to the decision-making processes of colleges anduniversities.

The strike has been, perhaps, the one aspect of collectivebargaining most offensive to opponents of faculty unionism. It isviewed by some as a shift from professional commitment to com-petitive power plays.3 Haehn reported that the belief of many

1 R. C. Brown, "Professors and Unions: The Faculty Senate:An Effective Alternative to Collective Bargaining in Higher Edu-cation?" William and Mary Law Bellew 12 (Winter 1970): 26/.

2Sanford Kadish, "The Strike and the Professoriate," /1/1 UPBulletin 54 (Summer 1968): 160-61.

3lbid., p. 164.

52

California State College faculty that collective bargaining woulddetract from the professional status of the faculty was related tonegative attitudes about the potential use of the strike. With guar-antees against the strike, reported Haehn, many fewer faculty sawan inconsistency between unionization and professionalism!'

The strike is one means for resolving an impasse betweendisputing parties. Other sanctions have been utilized by professionaland accrediting associations since around the turn of the century.The censure has been the most frequently exercised sanction.

Censure is, in fact, AAUP's most potent weapon. Bypublicly denouncing the institution, and relating thefacts and circumstances surrounding the seriousbreach of academic freedom, the association seeksto marshal the forces of public opinion.5

Although the censure continues to be the preferred weapon of theassociations, their previous rejection of the strike has undergone a

dramatic transition over the past ten years, a transition which hasparalleled their growing involvement in collective bargaining.

The Associations and the Strike

Prior to 1967, the National Education Association hadlimited its action against deviant administrations to the exercise of"professional sanctions." In 1967, the Board of Directors of theNEA made an abrupt change in attitude and issued the followingstatement:

The National Education Association recommendsthat every effort be made to avoid the strike as a pro-cedure for the resolution of an impasse.

41 0. Haehn, /1 .S'irrivi of Faculty aml Administrator Ati ttale,s. on Colic( tire Bargaining (Academic Senate of the CaliforniaState Colleges, May 1970).

5M. A. Brown, "Collective Bargaining on the Campus:Professors, Associations and Unions," tabor Law Journal 21( 1970): 169.

53

The NEA recognizes that under conditions of severestress strikes have occurred and may occur inthe future. In such instances the NEA will offer allof the services at its command to the affiliate con-cerned to help resc;ve the impasses

By the following year, a resolution of the "Withdrawal of Services"had been introduced and passed at the annual national meeting of theAssociation;? by 1971, NEA policy on the use of strikes in edu-cation had become quite definite. The new policy indicated that,although the Association prefers mediation, fact-finding, arbitration,and political action to resolve impasses:

(Ti he Association realizes that teachers may haveno choice but to resort to a withdrawal of servicesas the only means of attracting public attention to,and correcting conditions in, situations (a) whereconditions make it impossible for teachers to pro-vide quality education, (b) where solutions have beenproposed but have not been conscientiously explored,and (c) where solutions have been proposed butnot consummated. The Association supports effortsby local and state associations to obtain repeal ofstate laws that prohibit withdrawal of services.8

Because of the AFT's long-tertn affiliation with the labormovement, it traditionally has accepted the "management-employeerelationship between governing boards and administrators on theone hand and faculties on the other."9 Moskow has indicated

6"Resolution on Impasse in Negotiation SituationPassedby NEA Board of Directors, July 1, 1967," NE/1 Journal 56(October 1967): 38.

7J. D. Muir, "The Strike as a Professional Sanction: TheChanging Attitude of the National Education Association," LaborLaw Journal 19 (October 1968): 624.

8National Education Association, .Iddresses and Proceedings,vol. 109 (Washington, D.C.: National Education Association, 1971),p. 767.

9R. S. Brown, Jr., "Collective Bargaining in Higher Edu-cation," Michigan Law Rericw 67 (February 1969): 1069.

54

that the AFT has actively advocated collective bargaining in edu-, cation since 1935; however, only since local victories in 1961 in

New York City has the national organization actively encouragedall locals to strive for bargaining rights.10 There is some disagree-client over the role the AFT has played in advocating use of thestrike. Moskow, again, has noted that prior to 1963, when theNational Convention passed a resolution recognizing the right oflocals to strike and urged support by the AFL-CIO,"there had beenno official [AFT] strike policy even though locals had been sup-ported when they went on strike."' 1 Brown, on the other hand,has suggested that the AFT has always viewed collective bargain-ing without the strike sanction as ineffective.12 From this latterperspective, the AFT has consistently taken the position that fac-ulties should have the full rights accorded to private sector em-ployees, and that either the strike or the threat of a strike shouldbe used without hesitation when the situation demands it.

In a statement issued in 1968, the AAUP reaffirmed itsbelief in shared authority and an awareness of the professionalobligations of faculty members as the best means for achievingsound administrative relationships.13 Accordingly, the AAUP main-tained that these principles generally rendered the strike an in-appropriate mechanism for conflict resolution. However, the state-ment also revealed that the AAUP's attitude toward the strikehad become more flexible.

It does not follow from these considerations of self-restraint that professors should be under any legaldisability to withhold their services..,. Furthermore,situations may arise affecting a college or universitywhich so flagrantly violate academic freedom (ofstudents as well as faculty) or the principles ofacademic government ... that faculty members may

10M. H. Moskow, Teachers and thlimi (Philadelphia: Whar-ton School of Finance and Commerce, Industrial Research Unit,1966), p. 107.

"Ibid., p. 308.12R. C. Brown, "Professors and Unions," pp. 297-98.13"Faculty Participation in Strikes," 21,111P Ballethi 54

(1968): 155-59.

55

feel impelled to express their condemnation bywithholding their services, either individually or inconcert with others.14

On the other hand, the AAUP further indicated that a strike forpersona/ interests is contrary to faculty dedication to educationalinterests and objectives. The AAUP has stated that it "emphaticallyrejects) the industrial pattern which holds the strike in routinereserve for use whenever economic negotiations reach an impasse."18One observer concluded: "ft would seem then, that the AAUPwould likely recommend strike action only over academic ratherthan economic issues." /8

Strike Legislation

The fact is that most state legislation for public sectoremployee bargaining prohibits use of the strike by public em-ployees. Several reasons for this anti-strike legislation have beenargued and upheld. It has been asserted that strikes by publicemployees "constitute an impermissable interference with thesovereignty or governmental function of the state."17 Occasional-ly, strikes by public employees endanger the health, safety, andwelfare of the public at large.18 Statutes providing for publicsector bargaining, including the limited right to strike, were passedin 1970 in both Hawaii and Pennsylvania, and in Oregon in 1973.The Pennsylvania law, under whose jurisdiction the PennsylvaniaState Colleges organized, states that:

If is strike by public employees occurs after thecollective bargaining process as set forth in sections801 and 802 of Article VIII of this act [providingfor mediation and fact-finding] have been complete-ly utilized and exhausted, it shall not be prohibited

"Ibid., p. 157.16tbid., p. 158.16R. C. Brown, "Professors and Unions," p. 297."Ibid., p. 308.18Ibid.

56

unless or until such a strike creates a clear and presentdanger to the health, safety, or welfare of thepublic.1 9

To date, no public four-year institution in Pennsylvaniahas been confronted by a strike, although the provisions in thestate statute permitting the strike have been employed severaltimes by community college faculty. Strikes have occurred at col-leges and universities, and even more extensively in public ele-mentary and secondary education, in states where the strike hasnot been legalized. Commenting upon the potential effectivenessof strikes in colleges and universities, the AAHE Task Force onFaculty Participation stated as early as 1967 that: "Iwl hile wewould be hard-pressed to deny the crucial importance of highereducation, few aspects of this activity are so essential in theshort run that society would be threatened by their temporarycessation."29 The Task Force concluded that, although it is to beexpected that most faculty members would resist the tendencyto strike because of its inconsistency with their self-concept as pro-fessionals, "there are no decisive reasons why the faculty should bedenied the opportunity to strike, in terms of either society's essentialneeds or the long-run interests of the institution."21

In contrast with the 1960s, higher education has enteredan era of financial stringency. The financial resources, which in-creased exponentially with rising enrollments in the previous dec-ade, are cup rently in competition with demands upon the publicdollar for welfare, social reform, health programs, and programsfor the aged. Though retaining their self-concept as professionals,faculty members are necessarily becoming more concerned with

19Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Laws of the GeneralAssembly, Act 195The Pennsylvania Public Employee RelationsAct, 1970 (1) Article X, Section 1003.

20AAHE-NEA Task Force on Faculty Representation andAcademic Negotiations, hicult.t. Participation in Academic Gorern-ance (Washington, D.C.: American Association for Higher Educa-tion, 1967), p. 51.

21 Ibid., 52.

57

their personal interests and economic welfare. In view of fiscaldevelopments, the changing positions of the national educationassociations as faculty organizers, and the growing trend by teach-ers in public schools to resort to the strike, with or withoutpermissive strike legislation, it seems reasonable to assume thatthere will be greater acceptance of the strike by college and uni-versity faculty members.

Voting Behavior and the Strike

In the questionnaire sent to a sample of the electorate inthe Pennsylvania State Colleges bargaining agent election, an itemwas presented listing four alternative statements on the appro-priateness or inappropriateness of the strike in colleges and uni-versities. Respondents were requested to rank order these fourstatements from that statement with which they most agreed tothe one with which they had least agreement. The four statementsand the results of the rankings are presented in Table 24.

Pennsylvania State College faculty do not regard the strike asnecessarily unprofessional or as an inappropriate mechanism forimpasse resolution. Grouped together, respondents expressed theattitude that (a) though the strike is generally undesirable and shouldbe averted in most instances, (b) it may be an appropriate sanctionafter other legal recourse has failed to resolve grievances (rankedrespectively at 1.71 and 1.99). There was considerably less agree-ment with the attitude that the strike is unprofessional andshould not be employed by faculty members under any circum-stances (mean rank = 2.77). However, although the PennsylvaniaState College faculty accepted the position that the strike may beappropriate at certain times, they were in least agreement with theopinion that there may be occasions when extreme and irresolvabledifferences make the strike acceptable, even before resorting to otherlegal recourses as required by Pennsylvania law (mean rank = 3.54).

58

There were no significant differences in the rankings of thefour strike statements by APSCUF-PAHE respondents and AAUPrespondents (Table 25), as the attitudes of these two groups ofrespondents were consistent with the attitudes expressed by therankings of all respondents combined. Respondents who were op-posed to collective bargaining ("No Representative") concurredwith the most-agreed-with and least-agreed-with rankings of AAUPand APSCUFPAHE. However, "No Representative" supporters weresignificantly more in agreement with the statement that under nocircumstances should faculty members withhold their services ("NoRepresentatives" mean rank = 1.98). It follows that these samerespondents were less in agreement with the attitude that the strikemay be appropriate following use of other legal recourse ("NoRepresentative" mean rank = 2.57).

AFT respondents demonstrated the greatest deviation fromthe attitudes of Pennsylvania State College faculty as a whole. Allfour AFT rankings were significantly different from the rankings ofthe other respondents (Table 25), With near unanimity (AFT meanrank = 1.12), AFT respondents recognized the strike as appropriatewhen other legal recourse had been ineffective. Few AFT re-spondents apparently agreed that the strike is an unprofessionaland impossible alternative (AFT mean rank '= 3.76). Rather, AFTrespondents were more in agreement (AFT mean rank = 2,79)that, despite legal prohibitions, faculty should strike when extremeand irresolvable differences had arisen.

The results of this item indicated that Pennsylvania StateCollege faculty attitudes toward the strike were fairly consistentwith the official positions taken by the three national associations.The vast majority of State College faculty regard themselves as

professionals and would be reluctant to utilize the strike, yet realizethat occasions may arise when the strike would be an appropriatesanction. Quite predictably, those faculty who opposed collectivebargaining ("No Representative" voters) were equally opposed tothe strike. And, conversely, the most labor-oriented faculty (AFTsupporters) were in least agreement with the opinion that thestrike was never a possible alternative for college arid universityfaculty.

59

These data suggest, that there is a correlation between theofficial positions of the three national associations and facultyattitudes toward the strike. Whetner faculty attitudes merely reflectthe changing positions of the associations, or are instrumental increating them, however, is not clear. If the Pennsylvania StateCollege faculty attitudes are indicative of the broader populaceof the higher education faculty, it may be that the strike is nolonger regarded as an unprofessional activity, or at least a suf-ficient reason to reject unionism. As more states introduce publicsector labor legislation and as more faculty are granted the legalright to strike, the potential for strikes by college and universityfaculties will become much greater.

60

VIII

Governance and Collective Bargaining

Shared Authority

The AAHENEA report on Faculty Participation in Aca-demic Gorernance stated that shared authority is the middle zoneof an authority continuum ranging from administrative dominanceat the one end of the continuum to faculty dominance at theother end.1 Within the continuum, there is a range of options bywhich to achieve shared authority between various college and uni-versity constituencies.2

The first is a joint participation in decision making inwhich full consultation and cooperation among all constituents isthe norm. Under a joint participation model, faculty, administrators,students, and others all participate in formulating policy alterna-tives. This could be accomplished through committees where allthese constituencies are represented or in university-wide councils.

A second option under the term shared authority is sep-arate jurisdictions. This option requires differentiation of decisionsthat are most clearly within the concern, competence, and re-sponsibility of one constituency. Hence, some matters of specificconcern may be decided by one or two constituencies independentof others, while matters of mutual concern might still be decidedthrough joint participation of faculty, administrators, and students,

A third option in a shared authority system of governanceis collective bargaining. Each party agrees to negotiate in good

1AAHE-NEA Task Force on Faculty Representation andAcademic Negotiations, Faculty Participation in Academic Govern-ance (Washington, D. C.: American Association for Higher Edu-cation, 1967), pp. 15-16.

2Parts of the following discussion are summarized fromK. P. Mortimer, "Forms of Campus Governance: Joint Participation,Separate Jurisdictions and Collective Bargaining," (Paper presentedat the Annual Meeting of the American Association of Colleges,January 16, 1973).

61

faith and eventually to sign a legally binding agreement. Eachparty has veto power over the proposals of the other and willnormally agree on a formal procedure to resolve future disputeson matters within the scope of the contract.

According to Lyman Glenny, adoption of traditional formsof sharing authority, the academic senate, for example, has beenpredicated on the assumption by faculty members "that the topadministrators, especially the president and the governing board,have the power, the authority, and the means at their disposal tocommand policy and achieve the desirable ends."3 Glenny sug-gested that this is a mistaken assumption, for it has failed to recog-nize what he has termed the "anonymous leaders" of contemporaryhigher education. With these "leaders" located both inside and out-side an institution, several very significant influences have developed,particularly at the state level, "Within the state, of all the outsideforces operating on the institutions, limiting their autonomy andthe policy powers of their leaders, most debilitating are the newstatewide coordinating boards and the state budget offices."4 Per-sonnel employed by these boards and budget offices have normallybeen appointed by the state's governor and have been accountableto him. They have controlled a wealth of information about theseinstitutions, the dissemination of this information, and the dis-tribution of many of the state's funds for higher education.Glenny continued:

Moreover, as legislators try to regain powerfrom the governors, legislative budget review agenciescomposed of fiscal analysts are increasingly foundto be duplicating, in part or entirely, the reviewsalready made by the executive budget personnel orthe reviews of the coordinating boards.5

3L. A. Glenny, "The Anonymous Leaders of Higher Edu-cation," The Journal of Higher Education 43 (1971): 9.

4Ibid., p. 17.5Ibid., p. 19.

62

With so much of the power and authority over institutions of highereducation usurped from presidents and boards of trustees by thecivil servants and professional staff of state legislatures, coordinatingboards, and state budget offices, it has become clear that the issueof sharing the power and authority over the policies and welfareof the institution has gone beyond the internal personnel ormechanisms of the institution.

It may be appropriate to conclude, therefore, that the de-cision by many faculty members to adopt collective bargaining asa model for sharing authority has been a direct result of a shift inthe balance of power and influence away from institutions towardexternal constituencies. Mounting pressures upon higher educationbeginning in the latter half of the 1960sincluding Legislativeaction on faculty salaries and teaching loads, a shift in prioritiesto other types of social expenditures, and regulation by the courtsin matters of campus disruptions and faculty appointments andtenurehave challenged traditional forms of faculty governance.Confronted by what has appeared to some as a disintegration ofother forms of shared authority such as joint participation andseparate jurisdictions, many faculty members have sought new meansto share authority with those agencies presently making the crit-ical decisions in higher education. Collective bargaining has receivedprime consideration in this search.

Internal Versus External Governance Structures

The extent to which faculty members have perceived variousexternal agencies as having usurped traditional powers and authorityfrom within the university may have influenced their attitudes to-ward the acceptance or rejection of collective bargaining as a meansfor sharing decision-making authority about institutional policyand affairs directly affecting a faculty member's employment.The present research sought to determine if the Pennsylvania StateCollege faculty adopted collective bargaining as a countervailingforce to the administrations of their particular institutions or tothe more remote authorities of state government.

63

Six statements were prepared to reflect faculty concernabout the control of faculty affairs by varying levels of StateCollege and University governance. Three of these statements dealwith internal mechanisms of institutional governance, e.g., the col-lege's administration, board of trustees, and faculty senate. Theother three statements deal with state-level concerns, the statelegislature, or state government. Respondents to the questionnairewere requested to rank the six statements according to the degreeto which each statement expressed the extent of influence whichthat issue had upon their choice of a representative in the collectivebargaining election. Rankings were from one through six, with onebeing the most influential issue on a respondent's vote, and sixthe least influential,. The results of these rankings are presentedin Tables 26 and 27.

The Pennsylvania State College faculty were more influencedin their vote by the existence of strong external controls than bydissatisfaction with their present institutional administrations. Gen-erally, the respondents participating in the election felt that col-lective bargaining would provide the faculty of the state-ownedcolleges with needed representation and influence at the state level.Although this finding was generally representative of the votersfor APSCUF-PAHE, AAUP, and AFT, subtle significant differenceswere revealed in responses from the three groups and the "NoRepresentative" voters. As compared to the other three votinggroups, AAUP respondents seemed to be located in a moderate orneutral position for all six statements. (The mean ranks for AAUPranged from 2.59 to 4.29, compared to 1.65 to 4.75 for APSCUF-PAHE, 2.41 to 4.97 for AFT, and 1.44 to 5.06 for "No Repre-sentative.") Because each ranked score is dependent upon the scoresof the other five statements, greater variability in the rankings forall six statements by AAUP respondents seems to have created atendency for less variability for the mean scores for the individuzistatements. This indicates that AAUP voters were less cor.:,:stentas a group in recognizing external authority as an influence upontheir vote than APSCUF-PAHE and AFT voters. One could spec-ulate that AAUP respondents believed there were matters of concern

64

to the State College faculty which only state government couldresolve, and others which needed to be negotiated with theircollege administrations.

APSCUF-PAHE, on the other hand, received its supportfrom faculty members who were first seeking an association to"represent their interests in the state legislature and state govern-ment" (from the open-ended statements reported on in ChapterII), The APSCUFPAHE voters' very high ranking of this state-ment (1.65, where 1.0 indicated the statement most influentialupon the individual's vote) was significantly higher than the meanranks for the other three groups of voters (Table 27). APSCUF-PAHE, along with its parent association the Pennsylvania StateEducation Association (PSEA), was recognized by many facultymembers as an effective lobbyist in the state capitol. Accordingly,APSCUF PANE respondents voted for what they recognized asthe association with the most powerful political "clout" in Harris.burg.

Consistent with their vote, "No Representative" respondentsindicated that alternatives to collective bargaining were more de-sirable to promote faculty participation in institutional governance.The statement dealing with seeking alternatives to collective bar-gaining received a mean rank of 1.44 from the "No Representative"respondents. In contrast, AFT voters produced a 4.97 mean rankfor the same statement, The results from this item and from theopen-ended statements reported in Chapter II indicated that forAFT supporters only a "real union" could produce the desiredgoals for the Pennsylvania State College faculty. AFT supporterssuggested that they had little sympathy or faith in traditionalmodes of faculty governance; they regard senates, and evenAPSCUFPAHE, as more indicative of "company unions" than aseffective negotiators for the State College faculty.

Besides rejecting alternatives to collective bargaining, theAFT respondents were more inclined than the other groups tosupport their association's efforts to lessen the authority ofadministrative staff in faculty affairs and to promote presidentialand trustee response to faculty welfare and needs. More than the

65

supporters of APSCUF-PAHE and AAUP, AFT volerr, vie4ed theadoption of collective bargaining as a governance process tocounter institutional authority and the authority which stategovernment has attained in the affairs of the Pennsylvania stateColleges.

66

IX

Conclusions

Alternative Voting Behavior

Proponents of collective bargaining have frequently arguedduring election campaigns that a vote for No Representative" isa wasted vote. In the survey instrument for this study, two items attempted to assess the effect upon the election of the failure ofvoters to vote for one of the two options on the ballot whichseemingly had little or no chance of winning the election (AFTand "No Representative"). Before proceeding with further dis-cussion of study results and conclusions, a report on these twoitems will be made.

Since the contest in the election was primarily betweenAPSCUF-PAHE and AAUP, respondents were asked to indicatewhether they would have voted for the "No Representative"option or the AFT option if they thought it had a reasonablechance of winning the election. Seventy-five and eighty-two question-naire respondents who voted for APSCUF-PAHE and AAUP, re-spectively, indicated that they would have voted foi the "NoRepresentative" option if they had thought it had a chance towin. Another fifty-one respondents each from APSCUF-PAHEand AAUP indicated that they would have voted for the AFT.Had the above respondents voted as they suggested, the APSCUF-PAHE majority would have been reduced to 52 percent. Whenit is considered that the 126 APSCUF-PAHE respondents whomight have voted differently were from a sample representingapproximately 30 percent of the total electorate, it is conceivablethat as many as 400 of the 2009 APSCUF-PAHE voters mighthave voted differently if the AFT and "No Representative"options were believed to have a better chance of winning theelection. In that event, APSCUF-PAHE would have received about45 percent of the ballots cast, less than 50 percent plus one re-quired to win the election. A runoff election would have beennecessary. Apparently the strategy of arguing that a "No Repre-sentative" or AFT vote was useless was successful in achievinga first ballot victory for APSCUF-PAHE.

67

Discussion of Results

In each of the jirevious chapters, some fairly specificobservations about the survey 'results are presented. This sectionrelates more generalized conclusions and impressions. In someinstances these conclusions are confirmed by the data, while inothers the conclusions are conjectures stimulated by the surveydata.

Alden Dunham, in his book C'ol/e,s,,es of the loigottenAmericans, noted that one feature of the transition from stateteacher's college to state college or emerging university is a di-vision in the faculty between the new breed and the old guard)In many of these institutions, the old guard faculty have foundthemselves protecting the teacher education function of the insti-tution against the new faculty who have shown "more concernfor and knowledge about their disciplines and colleagues withinthat discipline at other institutions than about their own insti-tution and colleagues in other departments on their own campus."2This dichotomy was apparent in the voting behavior of the Penn-sylvania State College faculty. There were significant differencesin the composite profiles of APSCUF-PAHE and AAUP sup-porters, differences which reflect the transition of these insti-tutions from teachers colleges to colleges with a broader cur-riculum and mission. For example, APSCUF-PAHE supporters' weremore likely to hold tenure and more likely to be trained in educa-tion. (Forty-three and one half percent of all APSCUFPAHE respond-ents had their academic appointments in education.) APSCUF-PANEvoters were also more involved than AAUP supporters in teachereducation. Career-wise, APSCUF-PAHE respondents indicated that

E. A. Dunham, Colleges of the l''orgotten Americans: AProfile of State Colleges am/ Regional Universities (New York:McGraw-Hilt Co., 1969)

2lbid., p. 48.

68

they had served longer at institutions which reflected an emphasisupon elementary or secondary education, They had significantlymore experience teaching in elementary and/or secondary schools.They had served significantly longer both at their present statecollege and at one or more of the Pennsylvania State Colleges. Atthe same time, they had the least amount of experience teachingin higher education institutions outside the Pennsylvania StateColleges.

The AAUP, on the other hand, received its support fromfaculty more likely to be appointed in the arts, humanities, andthe social sciences. They were younger and had less teachingexperience in the Pennsylvania State Colleges, yet they had con-siderably more experience teaching in non-state college institutionsof higher education.

When viewed together, these distinguishing cbaracteristicsacademic discipline, teacher education, tenure, teaching experience,and ageled to the conclusion that the support for APSCUF-PAHEcame from those fa.culty who were more cognizant of and hadcloser ties to traditions of the state colleges as teachers' collegesIn their own campaign literature, APSCUF-PAHE supporters iden-tified themselves as "the Young Turks of 1948." This seems arealistic expression of the historical development of the Pennsyl-vania State Colleges. AAUP supporters, on the other hand, ex-pressed a frustration with the traditional emphasis of the collegesto teacher education, tended to deny this past, and looked forgreater visibility on the national higher education scene. The twoviews as expressed by APSCUFPAHE and AAUP supporters in-dicated that there was a relationship between attitudes about thehistorical developments of the Pennsylvania State Colleges and thecollective bargaining agent election.

The definition of the Pennsylvania State College facultybargaining unit was not determined during full hearings beforethe Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board. Instead, informal effortswere made to resolve differences between the contending asso-ciations and the administrations of the colleges. These meetingswere held in the offices of the Lieutenant Governor of the Com-monwealth in April 1971. The issue was whether or not to include

69

department chairmen and nonteaching professionals in the bargain.ing unit, At one of these sessions the parties agreed to include onlydepartment chairmen and proceed with an election in May. Onthe following day, the AAUP filed an unfair labor practice chargewith the Labor Relations Board charging collusion between theCommonwealth and APSCUF. In their formal charge, the AAUPcontended that the issue of whether or not to include nonteachingprofessionals had never been thoroughly discussed or resolved, andthat APSCUF-PANE, in its desire for an early spring election,prematurely ended discussion on the bargaining unit definition.APSCUF-PAHE countered with a charge that the AAUP was em-ploying the unfair labor practice charge as a means to delay theelection and provide AAUP with more campaign time.

The AAUP withdrew its charge in July 1971, but thereprobably is still disagreement between the two associations aboutthe interpretation of these events, The major point is, however,that the series of events in April 1971 became major issues inthe election campaign as presented in the AAUP and APSCUF -

PAHE campaign literature. Yet, survey data revealed that the fac-ulty members themselves did not regard these charges and counter-charges as significant factors in the campaign. Several interpretationscould be made of this finding. For example, one could speculatethat the campaign strategy of APSCUF-PAHE was designed tomaintain their image as an upright organization and dispel impres-sions that they were responsible for unprofessional behavior. Theirelection victory could be an indication of the success of such astrategy. It is also possible that while the central office campaignmaterials of the associations focused on these issues, the localcampus organizations were concentrating their discussions on otherissues. Nevertheless, in this particular case, it appears that a majorissue for the central association campaign was not the basis forthe selection of a bargaining agent. Applied more broadly toelections in general, the financial and personal efforts poured intomany election campaigns frequently have been devoted to beatingaround issues which have merited little weighty consideration bythe electorate. The real issue in the Pennsylvania State College

70

election was faculty attitudes about the nature of the institutionsthemselves and association congruence with these attitudes. Thegreat majority of the faculty voted according to two differingperspectives of the Collegesa regional and historical view versus anational perspective with aspirations toward attaining greater aca-demic recognition.

It was suggested earlier in this chapter that there appearedto be a relationship between these two perspectives of the StateColleges and the faculty who supported APSCUFPAHE and AAUP.The affiliation of APSCUF -PARE with a national association, inthis instance the NEA, was not as apparent as the affiliation ofthe local AAUP with its national counterpart. APSCUF wasfounded in the Pennsylvania State Colleges and for the State Col-lege faculty before establishing affiliation with either a state ornational association. (A parallel situation occurred in the originalelections for bargaining units at the City University of New Yorkwhere the "old guard" organization, the Legislative Conference,was an established local association which only later becameaffiliated with the NEA.) This unique character of APSCUF-PAHE,which distinguished it from the other two national associationsparticipating in the election, also seemed to have influenced fac-ulty attitudes about the three organizations. The results of thedata from this study dealing with faculty attitudes toward theassociations suggested that, in the broadest sense, the Pennsyl-vania State College faculty, regardless of voting behavior, agreedwith generally recognized descriptors of the three associations.Accordingly, the majority of AAUP, AFT, and APSCUF-PAHEvoters each described the AAUP as "most prestigious" and theAFT as having the most "historical commitment to collective bar-gaining." One could conclude, therefore, that the images of theassociations by the Pennsylvania State College faculty are reason-ably consistent with statewide or national perspectives. However,the second and perhaps more relevant conclusion would be thatthe difference in the election results, primarily APSCUF-PAHE'svictory over AAUP, was the percentage of voters who disagreedwith or disregarded these generally accepted notions about theassociations. Differences in the data which were significant indi-

71

cated that an important contingent of State College faculty re-garded APSCUF-PAHE, not AAUP or AFT, as "most professionally-oriented," "most prestigious," and as having the greatest "historicalcommitment to collective bargaining."

One of the impacts of collective bargaining has been itshomogenization of higher education.3 This homogenization occursin two ways: (1) across institutions in large state systems, whereevery type of institution from two -year agricultural schools tomajor universities are included in the same units, and (2) withininstitutions where both teaching and nonteaching professionals areincluded in the same bargaining unit. An agreement was made priorto the Pennsylvania State Colleges election between the Common-wealth and the contending associations to negotiate some phasesof a contract statewide, and others on a local basis. Accordingly,the questionnaire inquired whether a list of twenty-three potentialbargaining issues should or should not be negotiated, and, if so,whether statewide or locally. Among the issues which facultybelieve i would be more appropriately negotiated locally (at theindividual campuses) were faculty appointment and promotion,office space and equipment, curriculum development, and selectionof deans, department chairmen, and committees. However, as wasnoted in Chapter 2, the state negotiators reneged on the agree-ment to conduct some local negotiations, with the result that nolocal provisions were negotiated into the contract, Although thePennsylvania State Colleges are an integrated system, each collegeis an identifiable, separate entity. One could speculate that thefaculty, by agreeing to some local negotiation, may be expressinga desire to maintain some individuality about their respectivecampuses. Statewide negotiations were a Commonwealth decision.More recently, the staff of APSCUF-PAHE has drafted legislation

3K. P. Mortimer and G. G. Lozier, C'ollectire Bargaining:I mplica t ions for Governance (University Park, Pa.: Center for theStudy of Higher Education, 1972); and K. P. Mortimer and G. G.Lozier, "Contracts of Four-Year Institutions," Piteulli Unions and

t ire Bargan ing, E. D. Duryea, R. S. Fisk, & Associates(San Francisco: Jossey-Bass, 1973).

72

to create one institution with fourteen campuses. One rationalebehind the legislation is the promotion of negotiations applicableto all campuses within the system. In several respects, then, it isapparent that the collective bargaining experience in the Penn-sylvania State Colleges is continuing evidence of the homogenizingeffect of unionization,

A second general finding about the scope of negotiationsis that the dichotomy which existed betweeh AAUP and APSCUF-PANE supporters within the Pennsylvania State College facultywas less pronounced on the issue of the desirable scope of negotiations. The Pennsylvania State College faculty were essentiallyof one mind in their opinion that ercrything, from salaries, tocurriculum, to tenure and promotion, should be negotiated in anagreement for their colleges.

Faculty attitudes about the appropriateness of the strikeas a sanction to be used by colleges and university faculty wereconsistent with the positions of the national associations and statelaw. Only the "No Representative" respondents rejected the strikecompletely. APSCUFPAHE and AAUP respondents regarded thestrike as a "last resort" sanction as provided for by Act 195. Al-though preferring to utilize the strike within this context, AFTrespondents indicated that there may be instances in which extremeand irresolvable differences could lead to a strike before effortsat mediation or fact-finding are completed. The incidence of strikesin education in the past decade suggests that the attitude expressedby AFT supporters may be closer to reality. Strikes, even in highereducation, have occurred with and without legal sanction.

It has been widely speculated that the movement towardthe collectivization of faculty through collective bargaining hasbeen in part a result of the centralization of decision-makingauthority into state boards of higher education, state governments,and state legislatures. The present study has provided furtherevidence in support of this premise. Except for the small factionof "No Representative" voters, the vast majority of the facultyof the State Colleges supported collective bargaining as a meansto promote their interests in the legislative and administrative

73

chambers of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. Collective bar-gaining has increased the pressure upon governments to makeappropriations for public sector employees in line with salaryand fringe increases provided in the agreements. Whether legis-latures actually approve funds adequate to cover the arguments isanother question.

Summary of Conclusions

The major conclusions of this study may be summarizedas follows:

1. There are two general categories of faculty in thePennsylvania State Colleges. The approximate sizes ofthese groups were reflected by the level of supportgiven to the two major contenders in the bargainingagent election.,

2. Considerable time and money was expended upon acampaign which concentrated upon issues of more con-cern to the associations' central offices than to thePennsylvania State College faculty, and which probablyhad little if any bearing upon the election results. Ifthere are to be election campaigns, contending asso-ciations would be wiser to develop a better under-standing of the issues of most concern to the faculty.

3. Pennsylvania State College faculty attitudes on thewhole were consistent with generally held perceptionsabout the major associations contending for represen-tation. The significant percentage who either disagreedwith, rejected, or ignored these generally acceptednotions produced the electoral balance which favoredAPSCUF-PAHE.

4. The majority of State College faculty did not rejectoutright the use of the strike by college and universityfaculty. Though not considered the most desirable sanc-tion, there may be times when the strike is appropri-ate and necessary.

5. While there were significant differences in both votingbehavior and attitudes about the associations, the extentof agreement among the great majority of State Collegefaculty about the desirability of negotiating a broad

74

range of issues indicated that the division betweenthe two dominant groups of State College faculty hadlittle impact on the scope of negotiations issue. Onthis issue, the State College faculty were primarily ofone mind,

6. This one-mindedness was also apparent with respect tofaculty attitudes about collective bargaining as a meansto counter state control over the State Colleges.

7. One of the substantial impacts of collective bargainingin colleges and universities may be greater homogeniza-tion of faculty.

B. More colleges and university faculty may favor "NoRepresentation" than election results have revealed. Inthe case of the Pennsylvania State Colleges, associationstrategy arguing the futility of a "No Representative"vote was apparently successful.

Observers of higher education on the national scene havesuggested that faculty members in favor of collective bargaining atcolleges and universities are going to be the younger, untenured,least experienced faculty. However, in the context of an actualelection, this is too simplistic an hypothesis. Within the Pennsylvania State Colleges, the more significant factors were found to bethe academic atmosphere of the institution, its history and traditions,and the nature of ties between the institution and its faculty.Faculty perceptions of these factors, and the relationship of thesefactors to the contending associations, influence faculty voting be-havior. In the Pennsylvania State Colleges, two groups of facultyemerged with two dramatically different interpretations of the pre-vailing nature of these institutions. Each group had a different viewof the Pennsylvania State Colleges, each had a different emotionalattachment to these institutions, and each was in favor of a differentrepresentative association.

75

Appendix A:

Tables 2.27; 29.30

TA

BLE

2F

AC

ULT

Y R

EA

SO

NS

FO

R V

OT

ING

BE

HA

VIO

R A

ND

FA

CU

LTY

AW

AR

EN

ES

SO

F C

AM

PA

IGN

ISS

UE

S A

ND

PR

OM

ISE

S B

Y V

OT

ING

BE

HA

VIO

R

AP

SC

UF

-PA

HE

AA

UP

AF

TN

o R

ep(n

= 5

79)

(n -

330

)(n

= 3

6)(n

= 5

5)

Com

men

ts:

Rea

sons

for

Vot

e:

1.B

est a

ssoc

iatio

n fo

r m

e an

d th

e S

tate

Col

lege

s;th

e m

ost e

ffect

ive

and

stro

nges

t ass

ocia

tion;

it ca

n do

the

mos

t.

2.A

mem

ber

of th

e as

soci

atio

n.

3.S

ince

forc

ed to

hav

e a

repr

esen

tativ

e, th

isas

soci

atio

n is

the

leas

t of t

hree

evi

ls.

4.A

ssoc

iatio

n ha

s a

good

"tr

ack

reco

rd":

rec

ogni

zed

gain

s an

d su

cces

ses,

exp

erie

nced

in b

arga

inin

g,pr

oven

abi

lity.

(A

FT

a re

al u

nion

.)

5.M

ost p

rofe

ssio

nal a

ssoc

iatio

n, a

nd m

ost l

ikel

y to

mai

ntai

n pr

ofes

sion

al o

utlo

ok.

6.A

ssoc

iatio

n ha

s th

e m

ost p

ower

, inf

luen

ces,

and

reso

urce

s, m

ost p

oliti

cal c

lout

in H

arris

burg

.

7.O

ther

org

aniz

atio

ns in

effe

ctua

l and

/or

disi

nter

este

d,do

n't k

now

rea

l iss

ues,

pos

sess

poo

r le

ader

ship

,un

prof

essi

onal

, and

too

polit

ical

.

%%

%%

36.3

7.8

5.0

4.2

5.7

9.7

18.1

15.5

50.0

6.7

42.4

35.4

2.1

4.8

10.9

30.6

14.5

TA

BLE

2 (

Con

s.)

AP

SC

UF

-PA

RE

AA

UP

AF

TN

o R

ep(n

=57

9)(r

)=

330)

In=

36)

in' 5

5)C

omm

ents

:%

%%

%

Rea

sons

for

Vot

e:

8_K

now

s th

e ne

eds

of P

enns

ylva

nia

and

the

Pen

nsyl

-va

nia

Sta

te C

olle

ges;

a s

tate

org

aniz

atio

n.13

.5

9.N

eed

for

a na

tiona

l org

aniz

atio

n, n

ot s

tate

, with

natio

nal i

mag

e an

d pr

estig

e, n

ot p

rovi

ncia

l.16

.7

10.

Kno

ws

high

er e

duca

tion,

hen

ce b

est t

o re

pres

ent

high

er e

duca

tion.

(A

AU

Pas

opp

osed

to

elem

enta

ry a

nd s

econ

dary

edu

catio

n.)

3.1

33.9

11.

AP

SC

UF

-PA

HE

is a

"co

mpa

ny u

nion

."3.

319

.4co

12.

AF

T d

iscu

ssed

via

ble

issu

es; t

hey

"mad

e se

nse.

"13

.9

13.

An

orga

niza

tion

for

facu

lty, e

xclu

sive

of

adm

inis

trat

ors.

13.9

14.

Dis

like

for

unio

ns, c

olle

ctiv

e ba

rgai

ning

, and

orga

nize

d co

nfro

ntat

ion.

27.3

15.

"Uni

ons"

unp

rofe

ssio

nal,

not f

or c

olle

gefa

culty

.29

,1

16.

Con

cern

for

pers

onal

free

dom

, ind

ivid

ualit

y,an

d in

divi

dual

initi

ativ

e.34

.5

17.

Fav

or q

ualit

y ov

er q

uant

ity e

duca

tion;

hav

eco

ncer

n fo

r st

uden

ts.

9.1

TA

BLE

2 (

Con

t.)

Com

men

ts:

AP

SC

UF

.PA

HE

(o =

579

)%

AA

UP

(n=

330)

%

AF

Tto

--

36)

%

No

Rep

(n=

55)

%

Cam

paig

n Is

sues

and

Pro

mis

es:

18.

Sal

ary

and

frin

ge b

enef

its.

22.1

21.2

50.0

18.2

19.

Per

sonn

el p

olic

y, e

.g. p

rom

otio

n an

d te

nure

.3.

65.

45.

5

20.

Wor

king

, tea

chin

g co

nditi

ons.

3.8

2.6

16.7

-21

.A

cade

mic

free

dom

.3.

614

.2

22.

Whi

ch o

rgan

izat

ion

coul

d "d

eliv

er th

e go

ods,

"be

the

mos

t effe

ctiv

e ba

rgai

ner

in H

arris

burg

.23

.021

.213

.925

.4

23.

Fac

ulty

par

ticip

atio

n in

gov

erna

nce.

(N

o R

ep -

facu

lty-a

dmin

istr

ativ

e po

lariz

atio

n.)

3.3

6.7

16.7

7.3

24.

Nee

d fo

r lo

cal c

ampu

s re

pres

enta

tion;

whi

chas

soci

atio

n w

ould

pro

vide

this

atte

ntio

n.2.

93.

37.

3

25.

Cam

paig

n pr

omis

es r

idic

ulou

s, u

nten

able

, irr

atio

nal,

muc

h of

cam

paig

n co

nsis

ted

of n

ame

calli

ng.

6.4

12.4

30.9

26.

AA

UP

's d

elay

tact

ics.

3.4

0.3

27.

AA

UP

's p

rom

ise

of a

50%

rai

se.

2.8

0.6

28.

Libe

ral a

rts

vs. e

duca

tion;

col

lege

pro

fess

ors

vs.

scho

ol te

ache

rs; a

cade

mic

sch

olar

ship

vs.

teac

her

.-

trai

ning

; new

facu

lty v

s. o

ld g

uard

.0.

717

.9

29.

To

unio

nize

or

not t

o un

ioni

ze; p

rofe

ssio

nalis

m v

s.un

ioni

zatio

n.6.

022

.321

.9

30.

Thr

eat o

f str

ike

by a

noth

er a

ssoc

iatio

n.3.

819

TA

BLE

3C

RO

SS

TA

BU

LAT

ION

OF

FA

CU

LTY

VO

TIN

G B

EH

AV

IOR

AN

D T

EN

UR

E

Ten

ure

Vot

ing

Beh

avio

r

Yes

No

Tot

al

Co ro

AP

SC

UF

-PA

HE

455

69.3

202

30.7

657

100.

0

AA

UP

233

61.2

148

38.8

381

100.

0

AF

T29

65.9

1534

.144

100.

0

No

Rep

2647

_329

52.7

5510

0.0

Col

umn

Tot

al74

365

.339

434

.711

3710

0.0

X2

= 1

5.33

, df

3

P =

0.0

016.

TA

BLE

4A

NA

LYS

IS O

F V

AR

IAN

CE

ME

AN

AG

ES

BY

FA

CU

LTY

VO

TIN

G B

EH

AV

IOR

Vot

ing

Beh

avio

rM

ean

Age

AP

SC

UF

-PA

HE

42.5

85

AA

UP

40.7

65

AF

T38

.455

Co

No

Rep

40.0

55

A11

Res

pond

ents

41.6

89

Sou

rce

Mea

n

Squ

are

DF

F -

ratio

Bet

wee

n G

roup

s48

1.99

35.

199

0.00

1

With

in G

roup

s92

7011

16

TA

BL

E 5

CR

OSS

TA

BU

LA

TIO

N O

F FA

CU

LT

Y V

OT

ING

BE

HA

VIO

R A

ND

AC

AD

EM

IC D

EPA

RT

ME

NT

Aca

dem

ic D

epar

tmen

tA

rts

&S

ocia

l

Vot

ing

Hum

aniti

esE

duca

tion

Sci

ence

sB

usin

ess

Sci

ence

sT

otal

Beh

avio

rH

%H

%H

%H

%H

%H

%

AP

SC

UF

-PA

RE

181

27.5

286

43.5

609.

119

2.9

112

17.0

658

100.

0oo

AA

UP

167

43.8

369.

491

23.9

71.

880

21.0

381

100.

0

AF

T20

45.5

715

.911

25.0

00

613

.644

100.

0

No

13,4

319

33.9

712

.58

14.3

11.

821

37.5

5610

0.0

Col

umn

Tot

al38

734

.033

629

.517

014

.927

2.4

219

19.2

1139

100.

0

X 2

=17

7.78

2, d

f = 1

2P

<0.

001

TA

BLE

6C

RO

SS

TA

BU

LAT

ION

OF

FA

CU

LTY

VO

TIN

G B

EH

AV

IOR

AN

D T

IME

DE

VO

TE

D T

O T

EA

CH

ER

ED

UC

AT

ION

Vot

ing

Beh

avio

r

Non

e

/4%

1-25

%

14%

Tea

cher

Edu

catio

n

%

75%

up

14%

04

Tot

al

%

26-5

0%

14%

51-7

5%

H

03A

PS

CU

F-P

AN

E23

3.5

548.

288

13.4

340

23.0

340

51.8

656

100.

0ts

t

AA

UP

277.

150

15.7

7920

.797

31.0

9725

.538

110

0.0

AF

T1

2.3

818

.211

25.0

1422

.714

31.8

4410

0.0

No

Rep

47.

16

10.7

1425

.018

25.0

1832

.156

100_

0

Col

umn

Tot

al55

4.8

128

11.3

192

16.9

293

25.8

469

41.2

1137

100.

0

X2

=-

82.5

76, d

f = 1

2

P<

0.00

1.

TA

BLE

7A

NA

LYS

IS O

F V

AR

IAN

CE

OF

ME

AN

YE

AR

S O

F S

ER

VIC

EA

T P

RE

SE

NT

CO

LLE

GE

BY

FA

CU

LTY

VO

TIN

G B

EH

AV

IOR

Sou

rce

Vot

ing

Beh

avio

rM

ean

Yea

rs

AP

SC

U F

-P

AH

E6.

55

AA

UP

4.70

AF

T4.

59

No

Rep

4.18

All

Res

pond

ents

5.73

Mea

n

Squ

are

DF

F-r

atio

p

Bet

wee

n G

roup

s34

3.28

313

.975

0_00

a

With

in G

roup

s24

.56

1131

aBar

tlett'

s te

st fo

r ho

mog

eneo

us v

aria

nces

sig

nific

ant:

F"

= 1

5.82

94p<

0.00

1.

One

of t

he a

ssum

ptio

ns fo

r co

mpu

ting

an a

naly

sis

of v

aria

nce

F-r

atio

is th

ehy

poth

esis

of h

omog

eneo

us p

opul

atio

nva

rianc

es. T

he a

naly

sis

of v

aria

nce

pro-

gram

use

d in

this

res

earc

h (A

naly

sis

ofV

aria

nce

[AN

OV

ES

/AN

OV

UM

I :A

Sta

-tis

tical

Pac

kage

Pro

gram

, Uni

vers

ity P

ark,

Pa.

:T

he P

enns

ylva

nia

Sta

te U

nive

rsity

Com

puta

tion

Cet

ner,

197

1) c

ondu

cted

aB

artle

tt% te

st fo

r ho

mog

enei

ty o

f var

i-an

ce. T

he F

-like

sta

tistic

(F

') is

des

igne

dsp

ecifi

cally

for

use

whe

n th

ere

are

un-

equa

l gro

up v

aria

nces

and

une

qual

n's

(see

C. C

Li,

Intr

oduc

tion

to E

xper

imen

-ta

l Sra

t;:tic

s, N

ew Y

ork:

McG

raw

-Hill

Boo

k C

ompa

ny 1

964,

pp.

435

-438

).W

hene

ver

the

Bar

tlere

s te

st in

dica

ted

the

exis

tenc

e of

het

erog

eneo

us v

aria

nces

, the

F"

was

cal

cula

ted

and

repo

rted

in th

ere

spec

tive

tabl

e al

ong

with

the

conv

en-

tiona

l F-r

atio

. In

the

even

t of a

dis

crep

an-

cy b

etw

een

the

conc

lusi

ons

draw

n fr

omth

e F

and

F"

stat

istic

s, d

efer

ence

was

give

n to

the

F' s

tatis

tic.

TA

BLE

8A

NA

LYS

IS O

F V

AR

IAN

CE

OF

ME

AN

YE

AR

S O

F S

ER

VIC

EA

T O

NE

OR

MO

RE

PE

NN

SY

LVA

NIA

ST

AT

E C

OLL

EG

ES

BY

FA

CU

LTY

VO

TIN

G B

EH

AV

IOR

Vot

ing

Beh

avio

r.

Mea

n Y

ears

AP

SC

UF

-PA

HE

6.73

AA

UP

4.70

AF

T4.

75

coN

o R

ep4.

39

All

Res

pond

ents

5.58

Sou

rce

Mea

n

Squ

are

DF

F-ratio

Bet

wee

n G

roup

s

With

in G

roup

s

391.68

25.8

5

3

1129

15.151

aBar

tlett'

s te

st fo

r ho

mog

eneo

us v

aria

nces

sig

nific

ant:

F'.

= 1

7.06

78, p

>0.

001.

*(S

ee n

ote,

Tab

le 7

).

TA

BLE

9A

NA

LYS

IS O

F V

AR

IAN

CE

OF

ME

AN

YE

AR

S O

F S

ER

VIC

EA

T O

TH

ER

(N

ON

-PE

NN

SY

LVA

NIA

ST

AT

E C

OLL

EG

E)

INS

TIT

UT

ION

SB

Y F

AC

ULT

Y V

OT

ING

BE

HA

VIO

R

Vot

ing

Beh

avio

rM

ean

Yea

rs

AP

SC

U F

-P

AK

E2.

25

AA

UP

4.05

AF

T2.

80co

No

Rep

4.27

00

Sou

rce

All

Res

pond

ents

2.97

Mea

n

Squ

are

OF

F-r

atio

Bet

wee

n G

roup

s29

1.58

313

.824

0.00

a

With

in G

roup

s21

.09

1122

aBar

tlett'

s te

st fo

r ho

mog

eneo

us v

aria

nces

sig

nific

ant:

F' =

12.

4539

, p<

0.00

1.

TA

BLE

10

AN

ALY

SIS

OF

VA

RIA

NC

E O

F M

EA

N Y

EA

RS

OF

TE

AC

HIN

G E

XP

ER

IEN

CE

IN E

LEM

EN

TA

RY

AN

D/O

R S

EC

ON

DA

RY

SC

HO

OLS

BY

FA

CU

LTY

VO

TIN

G B

EH

AV

IOR

Sou

rce

Vot

ing

Beh

avio

rM

ean

Yea

rs

AP

SC

UF

-PA

HE

7.51

AA

UP

2.97

AF

T4.

27

No

Rep

2.69

All

Res

pond

ents

5.63

Mea

n

Squ

are

OF

F-r

atio

Bet

wee

n G

roup

s18

51.9

83

44.5

310.

00a

With

in G

roup

s41

.59

1129

aBar

tlett'

s te

st fo

r ho

mog

eneo

us v

aria

nces

sig

nific

ant:

F' =

52.

6978

, p<

0.00

1.

TA

BLE

11

CR

OS

ST

AB

ULA

TIO

N O

F V

OT

ING

BE

HA

VIO

R A

ND

FA

CU

LTY

AG

RE

EM

EN

T O

R D

ISA

GR

EE

ME

NT

WIT

H T

HE

DE

FIN

ITIO

N O

F T

HE

BA

RG

AIN

ING

UN

IT

Vot

ing

Beh

avio

r/4

Agr

ee%

Dis

agre

ei4

%

Row

Tot

alN

%

AP

SC

UF

-PA

HE

394

60.3

259

39.7

653

100.

0

AA

UP

251

65.5

132

34.5

383

100.

0

AF

T25

58.1

1841

.943

100.

0

No

Rep

2650

.026

50.0

5210

0.0

Col

umn

Tot

al69

661

.543

538

.511

3110

0.0

X2

= 6

.118

, df =

3P

= 0

.106

up

TA

BLE

12

CR

OS

ST

AB

ULA

TIO

N O

F V

OT

ING

BE

HA

VIO

R A

ND

FA

CU

LTY

SE

LEC

TIO

N O

FT

HE

MO

ST

PR

ES

TIG

IOU

S"

AS

SO

CIA

TIO

N

Mos

t Pre

stig

ious

AP

SC

UF

-PA

HE

f,/

AA

UP

AF

Ta

p

Tot

al

AP

SC

UF

-PA

HE

218

34.5

406

64.3

71.

163

110

0.0

AA

UP

61.

630

998

.30

037

510

0.0

AF

T1

2.3

4195

.31

2.3

4310

0.0

No

Rep

24.

246

95.8

00

4810

0.0

Col

umn

Tot

al22

720

.786

278

.68

0.7

1097

100.

0

X2

= 1

76.1

,a d

f = 3

p <

0.0

01

aTw

o of

the

expe

cted

freq

uenc

ies

in th

e A

FT

cat

egor

y w

ere

less

than

1. I

t was

app

aren

t fro

m th

e co

ntin

genc

y ta

ble

that

any

sig

nific

ant d

if-fe

renc

es w

ould

be

betw

een

AP

SC

UF

-PA

HE

and

AA

UP

. The

X2

repo

rted

is a

test

for

the

resu

lting

2 x

4 ta

ble

crea

ted

by e

limin

atin

g th

e A

FT

cate

gory

from

the

calc

ulat

ions

.1

1S. S

iege

l, in

Non

para

met

ric

Stat

istic

s to

r th

e B

ehav

iora

l Sci

ence

s,N

ew Y

ork:

McG

raw

-Hill

Boo

k C

o.. 1

956.

p. 1

78, r

ecom

men

ded

that

, for

chi-s

quar

e te

sts

with

deg

rees

of f

reed

om g

reat

er th

an o

ne, a

n ac

cura

te r

esul

t is

not o

btai

nabl

e if

mor

e th

an tw

enty

per

cent

of t

he c

ells

hav

ean

exp

ecte

d fr

eque

ncy

of le

ss th

an fi

ve. T

he s

ame

hold

s tr

ue if

one

or

mor

e ce

lls h

ave

an e

xpec

ted

freq

uenc

y of

less

than

one

.

TA

BLE

13

CR

OS

ST

AB

ULA

TIO

N O

F V

OT

ING

BE

HA

VIO

R A

ND

FA

CU

LTY

SE

LEC

TIO

N O

FT

HE

"M

OS

T U

NIO

N-O

RIE

NT

ED

" A

SS

OC

IAT

ION

CIO rQ

Vot

ing

Beh

avio

rA

PS

CU

F-P

AR

E#

%#

Mos

t Uni

on-O

rient

ed

AF

T%

H

Tot

al%

AA

UP

a%

#

AP

SC

UF

-PA

HE

AA

UP

AF

T

No

Rep

Col

umn

Tot

al

47 33

1 4

7.5

8.8

2.3

8.3

5 3 0 0

0.8

0.8 0 0

577

341 42 44

91.7

90.5

97.7

91.7

629

377 43 48

100.

0

100.

0

100.

0

100.

0

857.

78

0.7

1004

91.5

1097

100.

0

= a

158a

, df -

= 6

p =

0.7

887

aThe

con

tinge

ncy

tabl

e co

ntai

ned

cells

with

exp

ecte

d fr

eque

ncie

s of

less

than

1 a

nd m

ore

than

20

perc

ent o

f the

cel

ls h

ad e

xpec

ted

fre-

quen

cies

less

than

5. H

owev

er, s

ince

oth

er 2

x 4

con

tinge

ncy

tabl

e co

mbi

natio

ns a

lso

prod

uced

non

sign

ifica

ntX

2, th

eX2

stat

istic

for

the

entir

e ta

ble

is r

epor

ted.

(S

ee fo

otno

te 1

, Tab

le 1

2.)

TA

BLE

14

CR

OS

ST

AB

ULA

TIO

N O

F V

OT

ING

BE

HA

VIO

R A

ND

FA

CU

LTY

SE

LEC

TIO

N O

FT

HE

"M

OS

T P

RO

FE

SS

ION

ALL

Y O

RIE

NT

ED

" A

SS

OC

IAT

ION

Vot

ing

Beh

avio

rA

PS

CU

F-P

AH

E

Mos

t Pro

fess

iona

lly O

rient

ed

Tot

alA

AU

PA

FT

a

AP

SC

UF

-PA

HE

358

.56

.627

142

.84

0.6

633

100.

0co (.

..)A

AU

P14

3.7

366

96.3

00

380

100.

0

AF

T5

11.6

3479

.14

9.3

4310

0.0

No

Rep

816

.740

83.3

00

4810

0.0

Col

umn

Tot

al38

534

.971

164

.48

0.7

1104

100.

0

)(2

= 3

11.7

a, d

f = 3

P<

0.0

01

aSee

foot

note

a fo

r T

able

12.

TA

BLE

15

CR

OS

ST

AB

ULA

TIO

N O

F V

OT

ING

BE

HA

VIO

R A

ND

FA

CU

LTY

SE

LEC

TIO

N O

F T

HE

AS

SO

CIA

TIO

N "

HIS

TO

RIC

ALL

Y C

OM

MIT

TE

D T

O C

OLL

EC

TIV

E B

AR

GA

ININ

G"

votin

gB

ehav

ior

AP

SC

UF

-PA

IIEte

His

toric

al C

omm

itmen

tA

FT

Tot

alA

AU

P

AP

SC

UF

-PA

RE

192

30.9

396.

339

162

.962

210

0.0

AA

UP

5013

.537

10.0

283

76.5

370

100.

0

AF

T1

2.3

12.

342

95.5

4410

0.0

No

Rep

817

.03

6.4

3676

.647

100.

0

Col

umn

Tot

al25

123

.280

7.4

752

69.4

1083

100.

0

X2

= 5

7.09

8, d

f .=

6p<

0.0

01

TA

BLE

16

CR

OS

ST

AB

ULA

TIO

N O

F V

OT

ING

BE

HA

VIO

R A

ND

FA

CU

LTY

SE

LEC

TIO

N O

F T

HE

AS

SO

CIA

TIO

N W

ITH

TH

E "

GR

EA

TE

ST

NA

TIO

NA

L V

ISIB

ILIT

Y"

Vot

ing

Beh

avio

rA

PS

CU

F-P

AH

E

Gre

ates

t Nat

iona

l Vis

ibili

ty

Tot

alA

AU

PA

FT

(S)

(.71

AP

SC

UF

-PA

HE

228

36.1

302

47.9

101

16.0

631

100.

0

AA

UP

5615

.024

966

.669

18.4

374

100.

0

AF

T5

11.4

2045

.519

43.2

4410

0.0

No

Rep

36.

327

56.3

1837

.548

100.

0

Col

umn

Tot

al29

226

.659

854

.520

718

.910

9710

0.0

X 2

=93

.029

, df =

6P

<0.

001.

TA

BLE

17

CR

OS

ST

AB

ULA

TIO

N O

F V

OT

ING

BE

HA

VIO

R A

ND

FA

CU

LTY

SE

LEC

TIO

N O

F T

HE

AS

SO

CIA

TIO

N W

ITH

TH

E "

GR

EA

TE

ST

VIS

IBIL

ITY

WIT

HiN

PE

NN

SY

LVA

NIA

"

Vot

ing

Beh

avio

rA

PS

CU

F-P

AH

E

Gre

ates

t Pen

nsyl

vani

a V

isib

ility

Tot

alA

AU

PA

FT

AP

SC

UF

-PA

HE

615

97.0

71.

112

1.9

634

100.

0co cn

AA

UP

309

81.7

4913

.020

5.3

378

100.

0

A F

Ta

3784

.11

2.3

613

.644

100.

0

No

Rep

a45

93.8

12.

12

4.2

4810

0.0

Col

umn

Tot

al10

0691

.158

5.3

403.

611

0410

0.0

X2

= 7

5.02

a, d

f = 2

P <

0.0

01

aLov

v ex

pect

ed fr

eque

ncie

s in

the

cells

for

AF

T a

nd N

o R

ep V

otin

g B

ehav

ior

nece

ssita

ted

thei

r el

imin

atio

n fr

om c

alcu

latio

n of

theX

2 st

a-tis

tic. T

he r

epor

ted

X2

is fo

r a

2 x

3 co

ntin

genc

y ta

ble.

(S

ee fo

otno

te 1

, Tab

le 1

2.)

TA

BLE

18

CB

OS

ST

AB

ULA

TIO

N O

F V

OT

ING

BE

HA

VIO

R A

ND

FA

CU

LTY

SE

LEC

TIO

N O

F T

HE

AS

SO

CIA

TIO

N W

HIC

H IS

"LE

AS

T L

IKE

LY T

O S

TR

IKE

"

Vot

ing

Beh

avio

rA

PS

CU

F-P

AH

E

Leas

t Lik

ely

to S

trik

e

AF

TH

Tot

al96

AA

UP

coA

PS

CU

F-P

AH

E22

836

.636

859

.127

4.3

623

100.

0

AA

UP

6317

.029

278

.716

4.3

371

100.

0

AF

T10

23.3

3172

.12

4.7

4310

0.0

No

Rep

48.

342

87.5

24.

248

100.

0

Col

umn

Tot

al30

528

.173

367

.647

4.3

1085

100.

0

= 5

5.78

9, d

f = 6

p< 0

.001

TA

BLE

19

CR

OS

ST

AB

ULA

TIO

N O

F V

OT

ING

BE

HA

VIO

R A

ND

FA

CU

LTY

SE

LEC

TIO

N O

F T

HE

AS

SO

CIA

TIO

N W

ITH

TH

E "

GR

EA

TE

ST

LO

BB

YIN

G P

OT

EN

TIA

L IN

HA

RR

ISB

UR

G"

Vot

ing

Beh

avio

rA

PS

CU

F-P

AR

EH

%H

Gre

ates

t Lob

byin

g P

oten

tial

%H

Tot

al%

AA

UP

AF

T%

H

AP

SC

UF

-7'A

HE

624

98.0

10.

212

1.9

637

100.

0

AA

UP

271

73.0

4512

.155

14.8

371

100.

0

AF

T27

61.4

00

1738

.644

100.

0

No

Rep

a40

83.3

24.

26

12.5

4810

0.0

Col

umn

Tot

al96

287

.548

4.4

908.

211

0010

0.0

X2

=--

202

.376

,a d

f4

A 0

.001

a Lo

wex

pect

ed fr

eque

ncie

s ne

cess

itate

d el

imin

atio

n of

the

No

Rep

cat

egor

y an

d ca

lcul

atio

n of

theX

2 st

atis

tic fo

r a

3 x

3 co

ntin

genc

y ta

ble.

(See

foot

note

1, T

able

12.

)

TA

BLE

20

AN

ALY

SIS

OF

VA

RIA

NC

E O

F P

OT

EN

TIA

L C

OLL

EC

TIV

E B

AR

GA

ININ

G IS

SU

ES

RA

NK

ED

FR

OM

MO

ST

TO

LE

AS

T S

AT

ISF

IED

Issu

e

All

Res

pond

ents

Mea

n R

anks

b

AF

TN

o R

epA

PS

CU

F-

PA

HE

AA

UP

Aca

dem

ic F

reed

om2.

222.

032.

552.

292.

09

Con

ditio

ns o

f Em

ploy

men

t3.

043.

013.

093.

093.

09

Fac

ulty

Par

ticip

atio

n in

Gov

erna

nce

t3.

743.

653.

833.

914.

21

Fac

ulty

Per

sonn

el P

olic

ies.

*3.

823.

893.

704.

033.

48

Fin

anci

al B

enef

its*1

3.87

4.17

3.44

3.88

3.26

Det

erm

inat

ion

of In

stitu

tiona

l Mis

sion

tt4.

314.

254.

393.

794.

86

*F =

9.2

75=

0.1

75tF

=2.

685

**F

=2.

487

ll#F

= 1

2.60

3ttF

=3.

233

p< 0

.001

p =

0.9

14=

0.04

5p

=0.

059

P<

0.0

01p

=0.

022

df =

3,9

58df

= 3

,958

df =

3,95

8df

=3,

958

df3,

958

df =

3,95

8

aBar

tletfs

test

for

hom

ogen

eous

var

ianc

es s

igni

fican

t; th

e re

spec

tive

F -

like

stat

istic

was

as

follo

ws:

= 8

.152

,p

< 0

.001

.bS

cale

: 1 =

mos

t sat

isfie

d; 6

= le

ast s

atis

fied.

TA

BLE

21

PO

ST

HO

C C

OM

PA

RIS

ON

OF

PO

TE

NT

IAL

CO

LLE

CT

IVE

BA

RG

AIN

ING

ISS

UE

SR

AN

KE

D F

RO

M M

OS

T T

O L

EA

ST

SA

TIS

FIE

D

Issu

e

Aca

dem

ic F

reed

om

Con

ditio

ns o

f Em

ploy

men

t

Fac

ulty

Par

ticip

atio

n in

Gov

erna

nce

O c)F

acul

ty P

erso

nnel

Pol

icie

s

Fin

anci

al B

enef

its

Det

erm

inat

ion

of In

stitu

tiona

l Mis

sion

AP

SC

UF

-PA

HE

No

Rep

AF

TA

AU

P

2.03

109

2.29

2.55

AP

SC

UF

-PA

HE

AA

UP

AF

TN

o R

ep3.

013.

093.

093.

09

AP

SC

UF

-PA

HE

AA

UP

'A

FT

No

Rep

3.65

3.83

3.91

4.21

No

Rep

AA

UP

AP

SC

UF

-PA

HE

AF

T3.

483.

703.

894.

03

No

Rep

AA

UP

AF

TA

PS

CU

F-P

AR

E3.

263.

443.

884.

17

AF

TA

PS

CU

F-P

AH

EA

AU

P3.

794.

254.

39N

o R

ep4.

86

The

und

erlin

ing

nota

tion

is u

sed

to in

dica

te th

ose

diffe

renc

es b

etw

een

or a

mon

g m

eans

whi

ch a

re n

ot s

igni

fican

t.

TA

BLE

23

PO

ST

HO

C C

OM

PA

RIS

ON

OF

PO

TE

NT

IAL

CO

LLE

CT

IVE

. BA

RG

AIN

ING

ISS

UE

SR

AN

KE

D F

RO

M S

HO

ULD

BE

NE

GO

TIA

TE

D T

O S

HO

ULD

NO

T B

E N

EG

OT

IAT

ED

"

Issu

eA

PS

CU

F-P

AN

EA

FT

AA

UP

No

Rep

Fin

anci

al B

enef

its1.

712.

002.

072.

33

Con

ditio

ns o

f Em

ploy

men

tA

PS

CU

F-P

AR

EN

o R

epA

AU

PA

FT

2.77

2.85

3.12

3.17

Fac

ulty

Per

sonn

el P

olic

ies

AF

TA

PS

CU

F-P

AH

EN

o R

epA

AU

P3.

143.

163.

333.

39,

Fac

ulty

Par

ticip

atio

n in

Gov

erna

nce

AA

UP

AF

TN

o R

epA

PS

CU

F-P

AN

E3.

873.

893.

954.

14

Aca

dem

ic F

reed

omA

AU

PN

o R

epA

AU

PA

PS

CU

F-P

AH

E3.

713.

794.

094.

28

Det

erm

inat

ion

of In

stitu

tiona

l Mis

sion

AF

TN

o R

epA

AU

PA

PS

CU

F-P

AN

E4.

714.

744.

854.

95

The

und

erlin

ing

nota

tion

is u

sed

to in

dica

te th

ose

diffe

renc

es b

etw

een

or a

mon

g m

eans

whi

ch a

re n

ot s

igni

fican

t.

TA

BLE

24

AN

ALY

SIS

OF

VA

RIA

NC

EO

F R

AN

KE

DS

TA

TE

ME

NT

SE

XP

RE

SS

ING

RE

SP

ON

DE

NT

S' A

TT

ITU

DE

S A

BO

UT

FA

CU

LTY

US

E O

FT

HE

ST

RIK

E

Sta

tem

ent

All

Res

pond

ents

AP

SC

UF

-P

AN

EA

AU

PA

FT

No

Rep

1, F

acul

ty m

embe

rssh

ould

util

ize

the

strik

eas

an a

ppro

pria

te s

anct

ion

afte

r oth

er le

gal r

ecou

rse

to m

edia

tion,

fact

-fin

ding

,an

d ar

bitr

atio

n ha

vefa

iled

to r

esol

ve g

rieva

nces

.*a

1.99

1.99

2.00

1.12

2.57

2. T

he s

trik

e is

an u

npro

fess

iona

l san

ctio

nan

d un

der

no c

ircum

stan

ces

shou

ldfa

culty

mem

bers

with

-ho

ld th

eir

serv

ices

!la2.

772.

752.

793.

761.

983,

Str

ikes

on

the

part

of f

acul

ty m

embe

rsar

ege

nera

lly u

ndes

irabl

e an

dsh

ould

be

aver

ted

for

the

maj

ority

of g

rieva

nces

. to

131

1.66

1.72

2.32

1.71

4. In

cas

es w

here

the

brea

dth

of d

isag

reem

ent b

e-tw

een

facu

lty m

embe

rsan

d th

e st

ate

is g

reat

facu

lty s

houl

d st

rike

even

bef

ore

satis

fyin

g A

ct19

5 re

quire

men

ts fo

rm

edia

tion,

fact

-fin

ding

, and

arbi

trat

ion.

**a

154

3.60

3.48

2.79

3.74

'F=

17.

059

NF

=17

.422

t F11

.409

"F =

17.

040

P<

0.0

01,p

< 0

.001

p< 0

.001

P<

0.0

01df

= 3

,948

df =

3,9

48O

f = 3

,948

df =

3,9

48aB

artle

tt's

test

for h

omog

eneo

us v

aria

nces

sign

ifica

nt; t

he r

espe

ctiv

eF

-tik

e st

atis

tics w

ere

as fo

llow

s: 'F

' = 5

2.09

,p<

0.0

01;

#F' =

30.

472,

p <

0.0

01; t

F"

= 1

3.40

42,

p< 0

.001

; ""F

' -=

17.

9858

, p<

0.0

01bS

cale

: 1=

mos

t agr

eem

ent w

ithth

e st

atem

ent;

4=

leas

t agr

eem

ent w

ith th

est

atem

ent,

TA

BLE

25

PO

ST

HO

C C

OM

PA

RIS

ON

OF

RA

NK

ED

ST

AT

EM

EN

TS

EX

PR

ES

SIN

G R

ES

PO

ND

EN

TS

' AT

TIT

UD

ES

AB

OU

T F

AC

ULT

Y U

SE

OF

TH

E S

TR

IKE

Sta

tem

ent

1. F

acul

ty m

embe

rs s

houl

d ut

ilize

the

strik

e as

an

APSCUF-

appr

opria

te s

anct

ion

afte

r ot

her

lega

l rec

ours

e to

AFT

PAHE

AAUP

No

Rep

med

iatio

n, fa

ct-f

indi

ng, a

nd a

rbitr

atio

n ha

ve fa

iled

112

1.99

2.00

2.57

to r

esol

ve g

rieva

nces

.

2. T

he s

trik

e is

an

unpr

ofes

sion

al s

anct

ion

and

unde

rAPSCUF-

no c

ircum

stan

ces

shou

ld fa

culty

. mem

bers

with

hold

No

Rep

PAHE

AAUP

AFT

thei

r se

rvic

es.

1.98

2.75

2.79

3.76

3. S

trik

es o

n th

e pa

rt o

f fac

ulty

mem

bers

are

gen

-APSCUF-

eral

ly u

ndes

irabl

e an

d sh

ould

be

aver

ted

for

the

PAHE

No

Rep

AA

UP

AFT

maj

ority

of g

rieva

nces

.1.

661.

711.

722.

32

4. In

cas

es w

here

the

brea

dth

of d

isag

reem

ents

be-

AP

SC

UF

-

twee

n fa

culty

mem

bers

and

the

stat

e is

gre

at,

AFT

AAUP

PA

HE

No

Rep

facu

lty s

houl

d st

rike

even

bef

ore

satis

fyin

g A

ct2.

793.

483.

603.

7419

5 re

quire

men

ts fo

r m

edia

tion,

fact

-fin

ding

, and

arbi

trat

ion.

The

und

erlin

ing

nota

tion

is u

sed

to in

dica

te th

ose

diffe

renc

es b

etw

een

or a

mon

g m

eans

whi

ch a

re n

ot s

igni

fican

t.

(TI

TA

BLE

26

AN

ALY

SIS

OF

VA

RIA

NC

E O

F R

AN

KE

D S

TA

TE

ME

NT

SE

XP

RE

SS

ING

RE

SP

ON

DE

NT

S' A

TT

ITU

DE

S A

BO

UT

INT

ER

NA

L V

S. E

XT

ER

NA

L G

OV

ER

NA

NC

EIN

FLU

EN

CE

S U

PO

N T

HE

IR V

OT

E

Sta

tem

ents

All

Res

pond

ents

AP

SC

UF

-

PA

NE

AA

UP

AF

TN

o R

ep

1. T

he a

ssoc

iatio

n I v

oted

for

can

best

rep

rese

ntfa

culty

inte

rest

s in

the

stat

e le

gisl

atur

e an

d st

ate

gove

rnm

ent.*

a2.

281.

653.

192.

534.

09

2. T

he s

tate

gov

ernm

ent a

nd le

gisl

atur

e ha

ve n

ot r

e-sp

onde

d to

the

need

s of

eith

er th

e P

enns

ylva

nia

stat

e-ow

ned

inst

itutio

ns o

r th

e fa

culty

of t

hese

inst

itutio

nsfia

2.55

2.50

2.59

2.41

3.09

3. G

reat

er a

ttent

ion

shou

ld b

e gi

ven

to m

eans

oth

erth

an c

olle

ctiv

e ba

rgai

ning

for

facu

lty s

elf-

gove

rn-

men

t and

sha

ring

of d

ecis

ion

mak

ing

with

my

inst

itutio

n's

pres

iden

t and

boa

rd o

f tru

stee

s.ta

3.70

3.97

3.34

4.97

1.44

4. M

y in

stitu

tion'

s pr

esid

ent a

nd b

oard

of t

rust

ees

do n

ot h

ave

suffi

cien

t aut

horit

y to

res

pond

to th

ene

eds

and

wel

fare

of t

he fa

culty

of t

he P

enn-

sylv

ania

sta

te-o

wne

d in

stitu

tions

.**a

3.73

3.63

3.89

4.28

3.28

TA

BLE

26

(Con

t.)

Sta

tem

ent

All

Res

pond

ents

AP

SC

UF

-P

AR

EA

AU

PA

FT

No

Reo

5. T

he a

dmin

istr

ativ

e st

aff o

f my

inst

itutio

n ha

vefa

r to

o m

uch

auth

ority

in th

e af

fairs

whi

chsh

ould

be

dete

rmin

ed b

y th

e fa

cult0

f4a

6. In

tern

al a

gent

s su

ch a

s m

y in

stitu

tion'

spr

esid

ent a

nd b

oard

of t

rust

ees

have

not

re-

osp

onde

d to

the

need

s an

d w

elfa

re o

f the

o)fa

culty

at m

y in

stitu

tion.

tta

4.19

4.50

3.70

3.25

4.09

4.57

4.75

4.29

3.62

5.06

"F =

102

.886

p<0.

001

df =

3,9

11

Al F

= 2

.197

p =

0.0

87df

= 3

,911

t F =

46.

009

P<

0.00

1df

= 3

,911

"F =

4.8

76p

= 0

.002

df =

3,9

11

NH

F =

23.

962

p<0.

001

df =

3,9

11

ttF=

11.

941

P<

0.00

1df

= 3

,911

aBar

tlett'

s te

st fo

r ho

mog

eneo

us v

aria

nces

sig

nific

ant;

the

resp

ectiv

e F

-lik

e st

atis

tics

wer

e as

follo

ws:

"F

' = 3

1936

3, p

<0.

001;

A/F

' = 2

.863

0, p

= .0

46; T

F' =

- 86

.756

7, p

<0

.001

; "F

' = 4

.931

6, p

= .0

04;/#

1F' =

22.

3557

, p<

0.00

1;"F

'10

.779

5, p

<0.

001.

bSca

le: 1

= m

ost i

nflu

entia

l on

vote

; 6 =

leas

t inf

luen

tial o

n vo

te.

TA

BLE

27

PO

ST

HO

C C

OM

PA

RIS

ON

OF

RA

NK

ED

ST

AT

EM

EN

TS

FX

PR

ES

SIN

G R

ES

PO

ND

EN

TS

' AT

TIT

UD

ES

AB

OU

T IN

TE

RN

AL

VS

. EX

TE

RN

AL

GO

VE

RN

AN

CE

INF

LUE

NC

E U

PO

N T

HE

IR V

OT

E.

Sta

tem

ent

1. T

he a

ssoc

iatio

n I v

oted

for

can

best

rep

rese

ntA

PS

CU

F -

facu

lty in

tere

sts

;n th

e st

ate

legi

slat

ure

and

PA

NE

AF

TA

AU

PN

o R

epst

ate

gove

rnm

ent.

1.65

2.53

3.19

4.09

2. T

he s

tate

gov

ernm

ent a

nd le

gisl

atur

e ha

ve n

ot r

e-A

PS

CU

F-

spon

ded

to th

e ne

eds

of e

ither

the

Pen

nsyl

vani

aP

AN

EA

FT

AA

UP

No

Rep

0st

ate-

owne

d in

stitu

tions

or

the

facu

lty o

f the

se2.

502.

412.

593.

09'..

.1in

stitu

tions

.

3. G

reat

er a

ttent

ion

shou

ld b

e gi

ven

to m

eans

oth

erA

PS

CU

F-

than

col

lect

ive

barg

aini

ng fo

r fa

culty

sel

f-go

vern

-N

o R

epA

AU

PP

AN

EA

FT

men

t and

sha

ring

of d

ecis

ion

mak

ing

with

my

1.44

3.34

3.97

4.97

inst

itutio

n's

pres

iden

t and

boa

rd o

f tru

stee

s.

4. M

y in

stitu

tion'

s pr

esid

ent a

nd b

oard

of t

rust

ees

doA

PS

CU

F-

not h

ave

suffi

cien

t aut

horit

y to

res

pond

to th

eN

o R

epP

AN

EA

AU

PA

FT

need

s an

d w

elfa

re o

f the

facu

lty o

f the

Pen

nsyl

3.28

3.63

3.89

4.28

vani

a st

ate-

owne

d in

stitu

tions

.

The

und

erlin

ing

nota

tion

is u

sed

to in

dica

te th

ose

diffe

renc

es b

etw

een

or a

mon

g m

eans

whi

ch a

re n

ot s

igni

fican

t

TA

BLE

27

(Con

t.)

Sta

tem

ent

5. T

he a

dmin

istr

ativ

e st

aff o

f my

inst

itutio

n ha

ve to

oA

PS

CU

F-

muc

h au

thor

ity in

the

affa

irs w

hich

sho

uld

beA

FT

AA

UP

No

Rep

PA

HE

dete

rmin

ed b

y th

e fa

culty

.3.

253.

704.

094.

50

6. In

tern

al a

gent

s su

ch a

s m

y in

stitu

tion'

s pr

esid

ent

AP

SC

U F

-an

d bo

ard

of tr

uste

es h

ave

not r

espo

nded

to th

eA

FT

AA

UP

PA

HE

No

Rep

need

s an

d w

elfa

re o

f the

facu

lty a

t my

inst

itutio

n.3.

624.

294.

755.

06

TA

BLE

29

DA

TA

FO

R R

ES

PO

ND

EN

TS

AN

D N

ON

RE

SP

ON

DE

NT

S F

OR

YE

AR

S O

F S

ER

VIC

EA

T T

HE

IR IN

ST

ITU

TIO

N, A

CA

DE

MIC

RA

NK

, AN

D A

CA

DE

MIC

DIS

CIP

LIN

E

HM

ean

Yea

rsS

tand

ard

of S

ervi

ceD

evia

tion

Res

pond

ents

1216

5.66

65.

042

Non

resp

onde

nts

201

4393

3.05

1

Beh

rens

-Fis

her

t' =

1.4

931

(non

sign

ifica

nt),

p<

.05

Pro

fess

or

Aca

dem

ic R

ank

Ass

ista

ntA

rts

Hum

aniti

esDis

cipl

ine

Soc

ial

Sci

ence

sA

ssoc

iate

&E

duca

tion

c>...... co

H%

H%

H%

H%

H%

14%

Res

pond

ents

308

25.2

478

39.1

343

Res

pond

ents

408

33.4

371

30.4

779

14.7

Non

resp

onde

nts

817

.413

28.3

1941

.3N

onre

spon

dent

s 17

36.9

1328

.34

8.7

Inst

ruct

or &

Libr

aria

nB

usin

ess

Sci

ence

%

Res

pond

ents

957.

8R

espo

nden

ts28

2.3

235

19.3

Non

resp

onde

nts

613

.0N

onre

spon

dent

s1

2.2

1123

.9

X2

= 7

.024

(no

nsig

nific

ant)

X2

= 1

.880

(no

nsig

nific

ant)

, df =

- 4

'Bec

ause

of l

ow e

xpec

ted

freq

uenc

ies,

the

inst

ruct

or a

nd li

brar

ian

cate

gorie

s w

ere

pool

ed fo

r th

e ch

i-squ

are

calc

ulat

ion

for

Aca

dem

ic R

ank.

TA

BLE

30

CO

MP

AR

ISO

N O

F T

HE

PO

PU

LAT

ION

DIS

TR

IBU

TIO

N A

ND

TH

EF

OU

R M

AIL

ING

DIS

TR

IBU

TIO

NS

FO

R V

OT

ING

BE

HA

VIO

R A

ND

AC

AD

EM

IC R

AN

K

VO

TIN

G B

EH

AV

IOR

AP

SC

UF

-PA

htE

a%

AA

UP

a%

AF

Ta

%N

o R

ep.

H%

Tot

al %

Pop

ulat

ion

2009

55.5

1282

35.4

158

4.4

169

4.7

100.

0

Firs

t Mai

linga

314

57.7

178

32.7

234.

329

5.3

100.

0

Sec

ond

Mai

lingb

110

59.5

5630

.38

4.3

115.

910

0.0

Thi

rd M

ailin

g'17

355

.811

537

.111

3.5

113.

510

0.0

Fou

rth

Mai

lingd

6260

.234

33.0

21.

95

4.9

100.

0a

X2

= 2

.08

(non

sign

ifica

nt).

df =

3;

bx

2=

2.5

2 (n

onsi

gnifi

cant

), d

f = 3

;C

x 2

., ..- 1 0

4 (n

onsi

gnifi

cant

), d

f = 3

;dx

21.

99 (

nons

igni

fican

t), d

f = 3

.

AC

AD

EM

IC R

AN

KIn

stru

ctor

&P

rofe

ssor

Ass

ocia

teA

ssis

tant

Libr

aria

n/4

frf

Tot

al %

Pop

ulat

ion

909

22.2

1578

38.5

1224

29.9

389

9.5

100.

0

Firs

t Mai

linga

167

29.4

290

36.8

156

27.5

366.

310

0.0

Sec

ond

Mai

lingb

4824

.476

38.6

5427

.419

9.6

100.

0

Thi

rd M

ailin

g'66

19.2

148

43.0

100

29.1

308.

710

0.0

Fou

rth

Mai

lingd

2723

.545

39.T

3328

.710

8.7

100.

0

2aX

2 =

20.

80 (

sign

ifica

nt),

df =

3;

bX2

(non

sign

ifica

nt),

df =

3;

cX2

= 3

.53

(non

sign

ifica

nt),

df =

3; d

X2

= 0

.23

(non

sign

ifica

nt),

df

Bec

ause

of l

ow e

xpec

ted

freq

uenc

ies,

the

inst

ruct

or a

nd li

brar

ian

cate

gorie

s w

ere

pool

ed fo

r th

e ch

i-squ

are

calc

ulat

ion.

Appendix B:

Tests of the Reliability of theSampling Distribution of Respondents

This section discusses the additional procedures used toaccount for the reliability of the sampling distribution of respond-ents. The first procedure used was a theoretical test of proportionsof the relationship between the distribution of the population andthe sample of respondents by academic rank. This test produced asignificant result (see Table 28) and potential questions about thereliability. The major contributing factor to this result was thethree percentage point difference in the numbec of full professorsin the corresponding groups. While the significance cannot bedenied, it was concluded that this statistical significance was morea product of statistical power (very large n) than of a major bias inthe distribution ranks.

TABLE 28(dSTRIBUTION OF THE POPULATION AND THE

SAMPLE OF RESPONDENTS BY ACADEMIC RANK

Academic Rank

Professor

H

Associate Assistant

Population 909 22.2 1578 38.5 1224 29.9

Respondents 380 25.2 478 39.1 343 28.0

Instructor Librarianti % H %

Population 371 9.1 18 0.4

Respondents 90 7.4 5 0.4

)C 2 = 10.48,77, df = 4

Another procedure for detecting biased results for a lessthan 100 percent return is to undertake a sample of nonrespondents.Such sample of fifty nonrespondents was randomly obtained fromthe list of all nonrespondents. Data on the number of years of

113

service at the institution, academic discipline, and academic rankwas available from college catalogs for twenty-nine, forty-six, andforty-six respectively of the original fifty nonrespondents. Appro-priate statistical tests with these variables between respondents andnonrespondents all proved to be nonsignificant (see Table 29).Therefore we concluded that no bias existed between the respon-dents and nonrespondents at least in these three characteristics.

One last test for bias in the return was conducted. Thedistributions of respondents for each of the four questionnairemailings were examined for agreement with the theoretical pro-portions provided by the population vote for both voting behaviorand academic rank (Table 30). Of the eight distributions tested,only one, that for academic rank on the first mailing, produced a

significant chi-square (y2 = 20.8, df = 3). As with the test oftheoretical proportions for all respondents by academic rank(Table 28), the discrepancy which was most influential in creatingthis difference was the greater proportion of professors in the firstmailing over population professors. Thus, the slight bias found inTable 28 can be attributed to the higher rate of return by professorsin the first mailing. In general, however, the distributions presentedin Table 29 indicate that no bias was determined in the return rate ofany of the four mailings for voting behavior, and no bias in thereturn rate for the second, third, and fourth mailings for academicrank.

114

Appendix C:

Classification of Academic DepartmentsAccording to Academic Division

Arts and Humanities

AdvertisingCommunicationsEnglishFine and Applied ArtsForeign LanguagesJournalismLibrary ScienceLinguisticsLiteraturePhilosophySpeechTheology

Education

Audio-VisualElementaryHome EconomicsPhysical Education

and RecreationRehabilitationSecondarySpecial

Sciences

AgricultureBiological SciencesEarth ScienceEngineeringForestryGeographyGeologyMathematicsNursingOceanographyPhysical Sciences

Social Sciences

AnthropologyEconomicsHistoryPolitical SciencePre-LawPsychologyPublic AdministrationSocial WorkSociology

Business and Management Services

AccountingBusinessCommerceComputer Science and

Systems AnalysisFinanceManagementMarketing

117

Notes on the Authors

G. GREGORY LOZIER holds a D.Ed. from The Pennsyl-vania State University, and is a Research Associate in the Officeof Budget and Planning of The Pennsylvania State University.Prior to this appointment, he served as a graduate assistant withthe Center for the Study of Higher Education. Dr. Lozier has co-authored, with Dr. Mortimer, several publications dealing with theissues of academic collective ,bargaining. Other professional expe-rience included several years as Dean of Men at Atlantic ChristianCollege, Wilson, North Carolina.

KENNETH P. MORTIMER holds a Ph.D. from the Uni-versity of California, Berkeley. He was employed by the Centerfor Research and Development in Higher Education at Berkeley,where he participated in project research concerned with academicdecision making. He has co-authored publications on faculty partic-ipation in university governance and academic decision making.In addition to his Center appointment, Dr. Mortimer is AssociateProfessor of Higher Education in the College of Education.

Center for the Study of Higher EducationThe Pennsylvania State University

The Center for the Study of Higher Education was establishedin January 1969 to study higher education as an area of scholarlyinquiry and research. Dr. G. Lester Anderson, its director, is aidedby a staff of twenty, including five fulltime researchers, and acadre of advanced graduate students and supporting staff.

The Center's studies are designed to be relevant not onlyto the University and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, butalso to colleges and universities throughout the nation. The im-mediate focus of the Center's research falls into the broad areasof governance, graduate and professional education, and occupa-tional programs in two-year colleges.

Research reports, monographs, and position papers preparedby staff members of the Center can be obtained on a limited basis.Inquiries should be addressed to the Center for the Study of HigherEducation, 101 Rack ley Building, The Pennsylvania State Univer-sity, University Park, Pennsylvania 16802.

SELECTED PUBLICATIONS AVAILABLE FROM THECENTER FOR THE STUDY OF HIGHER EDUCATION

Monographs

Variability in Faculty Perceptions of the Legitimacy of DecisionMaking at Nine Pennsylvania Institutions, David W. Leslie, November1973.

Human Services Occupations in the Two-Year College: A Handbook,Theodore E. Kiffer and Martha Burns, May 1972.

Institutional Self-Study at The Pennsylvania State University, Ken-neth P. Mortimer and David W. Leslie (eds.), December 1971.

Numbered Reports

The Comm-Bacc Study: Postbaccalaureate Activities of Degree Re-cipients front Pennsylvania Institutions 1971-1972, William Toombs,August 1973, Report No. 23,

Students and Unions, Neil S. Bucklew, July 1973, Report No. 22.

Compensatory Education in Two-Year Colleges, James L. Morrisonand Reynolds Ferrante, April 1973, Report No. 21,

Pennsylvania's "State-Owned" Institutions: Some Dimensions of De-gree Output, William Toombs and Stephen D. Millman, February1973, Report No. 20.

The Tiend Toward Government Financing of Higher EducationThrough Students: Can the Market Model be Applied?, Larry L.Leslie, January 1973, Report No. 19. (Out of print.)

The Rationale for Various Plans for Funding American Higher Edit-cation, Larry L. Leslie, June 1972, Report No. 18;

Collective Bargaining: Implications for Governance, Kenneth P.Mortimer and G. Gregory Lozier, July 1972, Report No. 17.

Productivity and the Academy: The Current Otdition, WilliamToombs, May 1972, Report No. 16.(Out of print.)

I:LT(7)0(01Ra (inIchlate Achllis.sionS at The Pe1111.911'clilla Slate Ulli-rerSi1,1', Manual G. Gunne and Larry L. Leslie, March 1972,Report No. 15.

Ilw Quality of Graduate StudicN. Pennsi lrania and ,Yelet led States,Stephen D. Millman and William Toombs, February 1972, ReportNo. 14.

Reports 1-13 out of print.

Conference Reports

Ihe Fourth 1rtilual Pennsylrania Cunferento c,n 13()Ntseconc1aryOccupational Education, Angelo C. Gillie, (ed.) August 1973.

Bibliographies

,Selected Bibliography in Higher Education, September 1969, Re-vised April 1972.

Occasional Papers

Ralph L. Boyers in collaboration with Robert E. Sweitzer, CollectiveBargaining in Pennsylrania: .S'ioninaq of Collective BargainingAgreements, August 1973.

Naomi V. Ross, Community C'ollege Teacher Preparation rogtainsin the US: BiNingrapki with Introductory :Votes, August 1972.

U.Ecl. 4381