Unique or Oddity? The Challenges & Successes

of a Joint Bargaining Unit at a Public Two-

Year Community CollegeLauri WhiteHEOC 803

Benedictine University

Chapter 1Introduction

US federal labor law creates distinct categories of employee organizations

Considerable debates as to role of faculty (Hendrickson, 1999)◦ Managers or employees?◦ Union eligible or exempt?

History of Law & Higher Education

National Labor Rights Act provides individual states the freedom to regulate labor relations with public employees (Cloud, 2011)◦Language in act excludes public colleges &

universities from this coverage. Public institutions are governed by state

laws regarding employee rights to organize and bargain collectively (Cloud, 2011)

Ability to bargain is based on state legislation (Hendrickson, 1999)

History of Law & Higher Education

Employee reaction to organizing and bargaining◦ Varying degrees of reaction

Pennsylvania faculty utilized Internet to educate faculty for a potential strike (McCollum, 1999)

Full-time faculty at Cuyahoga Community College cast vote of no confidence in their president (Farkas, 2010)

History of Law & Higher Education

Carl Sandburg College has a joint bargaining unit where both faculty and staff are represented by one union.

Are the interests of both constituents adequately represented during collective bargaining?

How does the bargaining unit function as a whole?

Research Issue

Explore the success and challenges of a joint bargaining unit, representing both faculty and staff, at a public two year community college.

Purpose of Study

What is composition of leadership of joint bargaining unit?◦ How is union (Sandburg Education Association – SEA)

officer representation determined?

Who is involved in the preparation for contract negotiations?◦ What is involved in composing both SEA and Board of

Trustees (BOT ) negotiation teams?◦ What interpersonal relations are developed prior to

negotiations?◦ What are the strengths and weaknesses of composition

of team?

Research Questions

What is involved in preparing for collective bargaining sessions?◦ How are needs of both faculty and staff collected?◦ How are needs of BOT collected?◦ How are negotiation teams comprised?◦ What type of interaction occurs between BOT

representation and SEA?

Research Questions

What is depth of involvement of both faculty and staff during negotiation sessions?◦ What is role of faculty representation when staff

interests are discussed?◦ What is role of staff representation when faculty

interests are discussed?◦ What is role of staff and faculty during combined

interests?

Research Questions

What are interpersonal relationships after contract ratification relative to interactions during collective bargaining?◦ How do team members interact with each other in

the workplace after contract ratification?◦ How do team members interact with

administration who represented BOT in the workplace after contract ratification?

◦ What is the level of satisfaction of the outcome of collective bargaining session?

Research Questions

What constructs are unique to contract negotiations of a unified collective bargaining unit representing both faculty and staff?◦ How does the institution function relative to

collective bargaining?◦ What are the perceptions of the effectiveness of

the joint bargaining unit?

Research Questions

Chapter 2Review of the Literature

Contract – protecting the terms & conditions of employment (Boris, 2004)

Contract in higher education – the distinguishing achievement of an organized faculty (Boris, 2004)

Review of Literature

Legal challenges to reach current day collective bargaining status (Shaw, 2000; Castro, 2006; Hendrickson, 1999)

Public community colleges have highest concentration of union representation at 94% (Castro, 2006)

Overwhelming majority of collective bargaining units in higher education are at 2-year colleges (Boris, 2004)

Review of Literature

Initial attitude toward unionization was fear for loss of traditional academic rights – protesting unionization (Boris, 2004)

Review of Literature

Current environment – need support of unions in times of uncertainty◦ Increasing number of retirees◦ Positions being filled with adjunct faculty◦ What is role of adjunct faculty?

Equality Membership rights Role in union leadership

Review of the Literature

Other topics to review◦ History of College

Litigation in 1993 to allow formation of joint bargaining unit. State of IL denied another institution the same type of bargaining

unit years later.◦ Types of bargaining methods

Positional Interest-based

◦ History of Collective Bargaining at College 2 strikes

◦ Why is joint bargaining unit unique? Explore and uncover nuances of this type of bargaining unit To date, researcher cannot find any other institution in the United

States with this type of bargaining unit◦ Symbolic Interactionism

Review of the Literature

Chapter 3Proposed Methodology

In-depth narrative qualitative case study exploring unique aspects of joint bargaining unit.

Provide insight on issues and philosophy of organizational structure from collective bargaining participants

Multi-method design combining focus groups and in-depth interviews◦ Provides synergistic link

Methodology

Theoretical paradigm◦ Interpretive

Develop an understanding of the effectiveness of the uniqueness of a joint collective bargaining unit

Examination of dramaturgy Examining individual social experiences as a process of

performance (Hesse-Biber & Leavy, 2011) How does unified collective bargaining unit affect people’s

behavior? What areperceptions of participants in joint bargaining unit

when considering uniqueness?

Methodology

Type of study◦ Oral history / narrative (Hesse-Biber & Leavy,

2011 & Creswell, 2008) Invite participants of collective bargaining to tell

their stories of involvement in negotiations Study the individual experience of social change

◦ In-depth interviews (Hesse-Biber & Leavy, 2011 & Creswell, 2008) Gather rich qualitative data from the perspective of

participants of negotiations Find emerging patterns of resultant culture from

collective bargaining

Methodology

Two phases – research questions require both breadth & depth◦ Focus groups – provides greater range of

responses in short period of time◦ In-depth interviews –provide greater depth from

individual participants

Methodology

Explore aspects of ◦ Preparation for negotiations◦ Interaction with colleagues throughout

negotiations◦ Personal impressions of involvement in bargaining

unit Contributions to negotiation process / outcome

Methodology

Assess perceptions of successes and challenges of joint bargaining unit

Pay particular attention to◦ Opinions◦ Shrewdness◦ Details related to fear, job insecurities and

distrust◦ Teamwork

Assess various forces impacting procedures in the workplace and resulting events

Methodology

Participants – 6 from 2009 collective bargaining session; both SEA & BOT representation

Sampling method◦ Purposive / Purposeful sample

Participants are “information rich” (Creswell, 2008)◦ 3-4 members representing SEA

Duplication of participants is very little; very few have served during more than one negotiation

◦ 2-3 members representing BOT Majority of participants have served during several

negotiations

Methodology

Location of study◦ Public two-year public community college in

Midwest

Methodology

Data Collection (Hesse-Biber & Leavy, 2011 & Creswell, 2008)◦ Multi-method focusing on focus groups and in-depth

interviews Focus Groups – all sessions will be audio recorded with

preference of video recording to capture nonverbal expressions; allow researcher to observe group dynamics; allow participants communally to reflect on collective bargaining environment and experiences Participants representing SEA & BOT will gather separately

to recount their experiences of collective bargaining Participants from both the SEA and BOT will gather to

recount their joint experiences of collective bargaining.

Methodology

◦ Focus Groups (cont) Data from focus groups will:

Expose themes from group dynamics Identify the language, definitions, and concepts the

participants find meaningful (Hesse-Biber & Leavy, 2011) Help design focus of in-depth interviews with individual

participants

Methodology

In-depth interviews - all sessions will be audio recorded with preference of video recording to capture nonverbal expressions All 6 participants will be interviewed independently in

a safe, comfortable setting where participant can share stories

Interviews will be semi-structured – relying on certain set of questions and let the conversation guide the reset of the questions Explore new topics relevant to each interviewee

Methodology

In-depth interviews (cont) Identify markers from interview – make note to

examine closer when appropriate Probe markers to gain further response Data from in-depth interviews will:

Expose themes of attitudes and values Expose possible “agendas” of interviewee Allow the researcher to develop hunches for further

follow-up

Methodology

Coding of data (Hesse-Biber & Leavy, 2011)◦ Review audio and video recordings◦ Develop transcript from recordings

Locate segments believed to be important Develop categories for codes – stay open-ended Themes will be identified, concepts, or dimensions of

concepts will be examined looking for common patterns of behavior

Methodology

Coding of data (cont)◦ Descriptive codes (literal codes appearing in

recordings) will be established◦ Analytical codes (rely on researcher’s insights)

will be established◦ Focus will be on coding procedure (build clear

working definition of each concept producing a name for each)

Methodology

Coding of data (cont)◦ From the focus group recordings, the researcher will

make notes indicating: Agreement, disagreement, consensus Body language Leaders, followers Initial theories

◦ From the in-depth interviews, the researcher will make notes indicating: Agreement, disagreement of data collected from focus

groups Differences in responses of individual from focus group to

in-depth interview Continuing theories

Methodology

Boris, R. J. (2004). Collective bargaining and community colleges. New Directions for Community Colleges, (125), 41-49

Castro, C. R. (2000). Community college faculty satisfaction and the faculty union. New Directions for Institutional Research, 2000(105), 45

References

Creswell, J.W. (2008). Educational Research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research. 3rd Ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

Farkas, K. (2010). Cuyahoga community college full-time faculty vote 'no confidence' in president Jerry Sue Thornton. Retrieved July 23, 2012, 2012, from http://blog.cleveland.com/metro/2010/11/cuyahoga_community_college_ful.html

References

Hendrickson, R. M., & Education, L. A. (1999). The colleges, their constituencies, and the courts. second edition. monograph series, no. 64

References

Hesse-Biber, S. N., & Leavy, P. (2011). The practice of qualitative research (2nd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: SAGE Publications

McCollum, K. (1999). A faculty union uses the web as a tool in a labor dispute. Chronicle of Higher Education, 46(11), A57

Roberts, C.M. (2010). Dissertation Journey A Practical and Comprehensive Guide to Planning, Writing, and Defending Your Dissertation (2nd Ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.

References