for the S tudy of C ollective B argaining in 
H igher E ducation and the P rofessions
Follow us on Twitter @HigherEd_CB
                                                                                                 March, 2018
The National Center E-Note is a monthly electronic newsletter containing research and analysis relevant to unionization and collective bargaining in higher education and the professions.

1.     Register Now for the National Center's 45th Annual Conference

2.     Books for Sale at Annual Conference


Register Now for the National Center's 45th Annual Conference
   45th Annual Conference in NYC: April 15-17, 2018
Facing New Realities in Higher Education and the Professions  
Registration remains open for the National Center's annual labor-management conference, which will be taking place on April 15-17, 2018 at the CUNY Graduate Center in New York City.  The conference schedule will include interactive workshops, research presentations, and panels relevant to faculty, administrators, and non-faculty staff at universities, colleges, and community colleges.

We have special registration rates for adjunct faculty ($110, Promo Code 1719) and graduate student employees ($55, Promo Code 1922).  

The keynote speaker will be David Weil, Dean of the Heller School for Social Policy and Management at Brandeis University.  Dean Weil is author of The Fissured Workplace: How Work Became So Bad for So Many and What Can be Done to Improve It.

The conference plenary session will be examining Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and His Legacy for Our Times. Confirmed speakers for the plenary session are three historians: William P. Jones, the University of Minnesota, Derryn Moten, Alabama State University, and  Jeanne Theoharis, Brooklyn College.  The plenary will be moderated by Ronald Mason, Jr. , President, the University of the District of Columbia.

The following are some of the confirmed conference panels and workshops:

Workshops: April 15, 2018

Unionization and Collective Bargaining for Administrators

Unionization and Collective Bargaining for Academic Labor

Bargaining Over Health Care in Higher Education

Preparing, Presenting, and Defending at Arbitration

Financial Data Analysis in Higher Education

Effective Lobbying for Higher Education

Panels: April 16-17, 2018

Responding to Janus: Collective Bargaining and Membership Engagement

Recently Negotiated First Contracts for Adjunct Faculty

Bargaining a First Contract for Graduate Student Employees

Interest-based Bargaining at Community Colleges

Collective Bargaining for Non-Academic Staff
Academic Freedom in Trying Times
Wage Discrimination at Universities and Professional Schools

Creative Solutions for Resolving Wage Compression

Mission-Driven Classification Systems and the Impact of Collective Bargaining

Labor-Management Alliances in Support of Higher Education Funding

Online Harassment of Faculty and Administrators

Resolution of Conflicts and Improvement of Labor-Management Relationships

The Politics and Impact of Accreditation

Unionization at Religiously-Affiliated Colleges and Universities

Unionized Environments at Academic Libraries

The Financialization of Higher Education

The Unionization of Doctors and Nurses A2
Books for Sale at the National Center's Annual Conference
There will be a bookseller on site at the National Center's 45th Annual Conference selling books by conference presenters.  The following are some of the titles:

William P. Jones, The March on Washington: Jobs, Freedom and the Forgotten History of Civil Rights. W.W. Norton & Co, 2014

Jeanne Theoharis, A More Beautiful and Terrible History: The Uses and Misuses of Civil Rights History, Beacon Press, 2018

Lawrence Dunbar Reddick, Crusader Without Violence (reissued with a new introduction by Derryn Moten)  NewSouth, 2018

David Weil, The Fissured Workplace: Why Work Became So Bad for So Many and What Can Be Done to Improve it? Harvard University Press, 2017

James Castagnera, Riding the Fifth Wave in Higher Education: A Survival Guide for the New Normal," Peter Lang Inc., 2017

Kim Tolley, ed., Adjunct Higher Ed: The Unionization of Contingent Faculty in the United States
, Johns Hopkins University Press, 2018
Timothy Reese Cain, Campus Unions: Organized Faculty and Graduate Students in U.S. Higher Education, Josey-Bass, 2017
J ason E. Lane, ed. Multinational Colleges and Universities: Leading, Governing and Managing International Branch Campuses, Josey-Bass, 2011 A3
A Public Option for Funding Union Representation Following Janus?
J anus v. AFSCME , United States Supreme Court, Case No. 16-1466
The United States Supreme Court heard oral argument in Janus v. AFSCME on February 26, 2018, and a decision is expected to be issued by late June.

The case is a First Amendment challenge to an agency fee requirement under a public sector collective bargaining law requiring non-union members in a bargaining unit to pay a fee for the representation they receive in collective bargaining and in the administration of collective negotiated agreements.  The plaintiff seeks to have the Supreme Court overturn the 41-year old decision in Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, 431 U.S. 209 (1977) that found that agency fees in the public sector is lawful under the First Amendment.  

Justice Neil Gorsuch, the newest Supreme Court Justice and the fifth vote that can tip the balance on the Court concerning the legality of the agency shop, did not ask any questions during the argument.  David Frederick, the attorney representing AFSCME in the case, is a former law partner of Justice Gorsuch.

In our January 2018 E-Note, we discussed the public policy approaches taken by Florida and California, which might be the basis for remedial legislation in other states if the Court finds the agency shop unconstitutional.  
Under Florida law, a public sector union does not have to represent non-members in grievances. This decades-old provision allows unions to choose whether to provide grievance representation for a non-member in a right to work state.  
Last year, California enacted legislation requiring that unions be given access to employee orientations and that public employers provide unions with periodic lists of bargaining unit members and their contact information. The California provisions provide a means for union membership growth and membership stability.

We examined proposed legislation pending in other states in our February 2018 E-Note, which can be alternative models of statutory responses to a decision in Janus.  

In this month's E-Note, we examine a pending bill in Hawaii introduced by Representative Marcus Oshiro that proposes another policy option: public funding for union representation if the Supreme Court decides that agency fees are unconstitutional.

It should be remembered that Hawaii and Rhode Island were the first States to enact public sector collective bargaining laws that mandated  payroll deductions of service fees or charges for non-members.  See , Joyce M. Najita & Dennis T. Ogawa, Guide to Statutory Provisions in Public Sector Collective Bargaining: Union Security, pp. 2-4, 10, 15 (1973).  

Under Representative Oshiro's bill, the State of Hawaii would make annual contributions to a "public employees' collective bargaining fund," which would be disbursed to the "exclusive bargaining representative for every bargaining unit" pursuant to the terms of collective bargaining agreements.  On its face, the proposed public option would fund the representation of all public sector bargaining unit employees, whether they are members or non-members of a union. 

Public funding of union representation of government workers who choose not to become union members is not a new idea.   The concept was examined as early as 1968 in a memorandum prepared by the New York City Corporation Counsel's office ten months after the enactment of New York's Taylor Law and the New York City Collective Bargaining Law.  The memorandum stated, in part:

'An alternative to the checkoff of a representation fee would be the direct payment by the City to the Union of a lump sum bargaining fee.  Although such a solution would obviate certain legal difficulties inherent in compulsory checkoff..., it has disadvantages from a policy standpoint.  It would create a psychological detachment between the union and employee and have the effect of creating a 'company union' atmosphere."  See, Memorandum from Office of the Corporation Counsel to Labor Policy Committee, Received by Office of the Mayor, July 9, 1968, pp. 11-15, City of New York Department of Records & Information Services, Municipal Archives, John V. Lindsay Files, Box 58, Folder 1094 Labor Policy - Agency Shop 1968-1969.

The memorandum also highlighted the fact that employer funding of union representation would be unlawful under federal private sector law.   Fifty years later, it is likely that the concept of public funding of union representation would be opposed by both supporters and opponents of public sector collective bargaining.  

It can be argued that employer-funded representation would undermine the independence of unions as the exclusive representative of workers, and would create the specter of company unionism.  Such funding would constitute employer domination and might result in interference in the union's representation of bargaining unit employees.  Fiscal conservatives would attack the concept as an illegitimate expenditure of tax dollars, and as evidence of the alleged illegitimacy of public sector collective bargaining.  A4 
Another Post-Janus Option: Mandating Payment to a Non-Profit
New York University School of Law Professor Samuel Estreicher recently published an article proposing another potential post-Janus public policy change.  The article proposes that employees who conscientiously object to financially supporting a public sector union should be required to donate a sum equivalent of an agency fee or dues to a charity of their own choosing. As the article notes, a very similar legal requirement exists under Section 19 of National Labor Relations Act for individuals with religious objections to joining or financially supporting a labor union.

At least one state, Michigan, has language in its public sector collective bargaining statute that touches upon this option. The Michigan Public Employment Relations Act, Section 423.209(1)(c), states that a public employee may "[p]ay to any charitable organization or third party an amount that is in lieu of, equivalent to, or any portion of dues, fees, assessments, or other charges or expenses required of members of or public employees represented by a labor organization or bargaining representative."

While a  mandate that requires a contribution to a charitable cause of one's choosing avoids First Amendment concerns, and undermines the free-rider syndrome to some degree, it does not solve the adverse financial impact of non-payment to the union on its ability to represent the bargaining unit in negotiations and in the administration of contracts. A5
Texas Tech Univ.: Tenure Opposition Protected under First Amendment
Wetherbe v. Goebel, et al, Texas Court of Appeals, Case  No. 07-16-00179-CV

Without tenure protections, an employee can be discharged or otherwise retaliated against without due process and for any reason except one that is unlawfully motivated. 

In the public sector, the First Amendment grants employees protections against retaliation for speaking on matters of public concern, which are balanced against an employer's interest in providing effective and efficient public services.  There are also constitutional due process protections for public employees with statutory or contractual job security.  These limitations on administrative discretion concerning terms and conditions of employment can be substantially enhanced though collective bargaining.  This is true for professors as well as others employed at public colleges and universities.  

The Texas Court of Appeals on March 6, 2018 issued a decision reinstating a First Amendment lawsuit brought by Professor James C. Wetherbe alleging that administrators at Texas Tech University retaliated against him because of his scholarship and advocacy in opposition to tenure.  The retaliation alleged by Professor Wetherbe included the alleged " denial of access to data pertaining to a specific scholarship fund, removal as associate dean for outreach and from participation in the chief executive roundtable and the leadership council, removal as professor for an MBA communications skills course, replacement as advisor for the MBA student association, notification...of 'an unfounded sexual harassment allegation,'and demotion to 'professor of practice.'"

In its decision, the Texas Court of Appeals concluded based on the content and context of Professor Wetherbe's writings that his criticisms of tenure touched upon a matter of public concern protected by the First Amendment even though some of his articles included his personal  dissatisfaction with tenure.  The appellate court remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings concerning the lawsuit.  A6  
Reed College: Representation Election for Housing Advisors
Reed College, NLRB Case No. 19-RC-213177
On March 2, 2018, NLRB Region 19 Director Ronald K. Hooks issued a Decision and Direction of Election concerning a representation petition filed by Student Workers Coalition-Local 1 Housing Advisers seeking to represent approximately 52 student housing advisers at Reed College. 

In his decision, Regional Director Hooks rejected the college's argument that the students in the proposed unit are not employees under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), that the agency should decline jurisdiction because of the peer support-mentor role played by the housing advisors, and that the proposed unit is inappropriate because it should include students holding other peer support positions at the college.

An on-site election has been scheduled for March 22, 2018 from 11:30 a.m. to 1:30 p.m. and 5:30 p.m. to 7:30 p.m at locations in the Reed College Student Union concerning the following unit found to be appropriate by Regional Director Hooks:: 

All Housing Advisers employed by the Employer at its Portland, Oregon campus but excluding all non-student staff employed at the Employer's Residence Life Department, all other student employees employed by the Employer and guards and supervisors as defined by the Act. 

On March 9, 2018, Reed College filed a Request for Expedited Review from the Regional Director's Decision, seeking a stay of the election or in the alternative impoundment of the ballots.  The college in its request does not directly challenge the decision in  Columbia University, 346 NLRB No. 90 (2016) concerning the employee status of students under the NLRA, but in a footnote reserved its right to do so in the future:

"This application is made without prejudice to the College's right, pre- and post-election, to request review of the Regional Director's finding and conclusion that 1) the students in question are "employees" within the meaning of Section 2(3) of the Act, and 2) the appropriateness of the unit, pursuant to 29 CFR 102.67."   A7
University of Washington: Representation Election for Post-Docs
University of Washington, WPERC Case No. 129731-E-17 
On October 3, 2017, the UAW filed a petition with the Washington Public Employment Relations Commission (WPERC) seeking to represent a bargaining unit composed of 1150 post-doctoral employees at the University of Washington in the following proposed unit:  
Included:  All postdoctoral employees employed by the University of Washington in the following titles: Senior Fellows (10445), Senior Fellow Trainee (10442), Research Associate (10148), Research Associate Trainee (10150), and also including employees in the following titles, Acting Instructor, Lecturer, Acting Assistant Professor, and Visiting Scientist, who meet the definition of post-doctoral employee set forth in the University of Washington Office of Post-Doctoral Affairs Handbook "An individual who has received a doctoral degree and is engaged in a temporary and defined period of mentored advanced training to enhance the professional skills and research independence needed to pursue his or her chosen career path." 

On March 3, 2017, WPERC Executive Director Michael P. Sellars issued a decision directing an election concerning the UAW representation petition. In his decision, Executive Director Sellars ruled that Research Associates and Research Associate Trainees belong in the same bargaining unit with other post-doctoral employees even though the two positions have been designated as faculty by the university. 

More recently, approximately 200 post-doctoral employees engaged in a "work-in" protest at the university's administration building concerning the possibility that the university would appeal the WPERC Executive Director's decision.  According to a  news report, the university has announced that it will not be appealing, which would have delayed the holding of the representation election.   A8
Univ. of South Florida: Adjunct Faculty Vote for SEIU Representation
University of South Florida Board of Trustees , PERC Case No. EL-2018-002  

On March 13, 2018, the Florida Public Employees Relations Commission (PERC) conducted a tally of ballots in a mail-ballot election among part-time adjunct faculty at the University of South Florida on a representation petition filed by SEIU.  Of the 893 faculty eligible to vote, 326 voted in favor of unionization, 91 voted to remain without collective representation.

The following is the at-issue adjunct faculty unit at the University of South Florida:

Included:  All part-time non-tenure-track faculty (including adjunct faculty, adjuncts contingent, adjunct, adjunct instruct, skilled craftsman, Into/Pathways, instructor, instructor I, instructor II, and hourly employee) employed by the University of South Florida at its Tampa Campus, St. Petersburg Campus, and SarasotaManatee Campus, who is teaching at least one college-credit-bearing course, including any employee who also works for the University in another capacity unless expressly excluded.
Excluded:  All other faculty, including tenured and tenure-track faculty, full-time faculty, visiting or contract faculty, faculty who are currently part of an existing bargaining unit, all administrations (including academic advisors, deans, assistants to deans, provost, directors, coordinators, department chairs, student services advising generalists, athletic coaches, all faculty teaching at the College of Nursing, Morsani College of Medicine, College of Public Health, School of Physical Therapy, School of Biomedical Sciences, and College of Pharmacy, all other employees who are not compensated additionally for teaching, managers, confidential employees, and supervisors.A9
Duquesne University: NLRB Rules School Violated its Duty to Bargain
Duquesne University, NLRB Case No. Case 06-CA-197492
On February 28, 2018, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) issued a decision
concluding that Duquesne University violated the National Labor Relations Act by refusing to recognize and bargain with the United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied-Industrial and Service Workers International Union, AFL-CIO, CLC (USW) after USW was certified as the exclusive representative for the following bargaining unit of adjunct faculty at the university:

All part-time adjunct faculty employed by us in the McAnulty College and Graduate School of Liberal Arts located in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; excluding all Department of Theology part-time adjunct faculty, all full-time faculty, graduate students, staff and administrators, office clerical employees and guards, other professional employees and supervisors as defined in the Act, and all other employees.

In the NLRB's decision, Chairman Kaplan and Member Emanuel did not express an opinion on the merits of the Board's decision in Pacific Lutheran University, 361 NLRB 1404 (2014) concerning the standard to be applied in determining a jurisdictional objection raised by a religiously-affiliated institution.   

Immediately following the NLRB's decision, Duquesne University filed a Petition for Review of the agency's decision with the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.  In its petition, the university asserts that the NLRB does not have jurisdiction over the university because of its religious mission.  It is probable that the litigation will result in federal appellate review of the standards set forth in the NLRB's decision in Pacific Lutheran University.  A10
Saint Xavier Univerity: NLRB Rules School Violated its Duty to Bargain
Saint Xavier University, NLRB Case No. 13-CA-204564
On March 9, 2018, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) issued a
decision  concluding that Saint Xavier University violated the National Labor Relations Act by refusing to recognize and bargain with the Saint Xavier University  Adjunct Faculty Organization, IEA-NEA after it was certified as the exclusive representative for the following bargaining unit of adjunct faculty at the university:

Included: All part-time faculty employed by the Employer at its campuses presently located at 3700 West 103rd Street, Chicago, Illinois and 18230 Orland Parkway, Orland Park, Illinois, who teach at least three credit hours per semester.

Excluded: All part-time faculty while teaching coursework in the Pastoral Ministry Institute and members in the School of Nursing, all part-time faculty teaching in the Department of Religious Studies, all music tutors, all student supervisors in the School of Education, independent contractors, confidential employees and managers, office clerical employees and guards, professional employees and supervisors as defined
i n the Act.
In the NLRB's decision, Chairman Kaplan and Member Emanuel did not express an opinion on the merits of the Board's decision in Pacific Lutheran University, 361 NLRB 1404 (2014) concerning the standard to be applied in determining a jurisdictional objection raised by a religiously-affiliated institution.   A11
Four National Unions Issue Joint Letter Demanding GSE Bargaining
On March 14, 2018, AFT, SEIU, UAW and UNITE HERE sent a joint letter to the Presidents of Yale University, Columbia University, Boston College, University of Chicago, and Loyola University Chicago demanding each institution to commence collective bargaining with unions representing graduate student employees (GSE) at their institution.  On each campus, vote tallies in representation elections conducted by the National Labor Relations Board demonstrated that a majority of the graduate students supported union representation.  

The joint letter stated, in part:

"Despite clear votes in favor of unionization at your university, you have attempted to silence graduate workers by using the Trump National Labor Relations Board to rig the system against them. Your refusal to bargain with a democratically chosen union both ignores the value of RAs and TAs as workers and contradicts the fundamental values for which your university stands."

Following the elections, the NLRB certified the unions on each campus.  More recently, a number of representation petitions were withdrawn with the exception of Columbia University and Loyola University of Chicago. A12
University of Pittsburgh: Plan to Challenge Right of GSE to Unionize
According to a recent media report , the University of Pittsburgh has announced plans to challenge whether its graduate student employees have the right to unionize under Pennsylvania's public sector collective bargaining law.  

The representation petition was filed by the United Steelworkers on December 15, 2017 with the Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board seeking to be certified as the representative of a unit of approximately 2,000 graduate student employees at univesity.  
The following is the petitioned-for unit:
Included:  All salaried and hourly graduate employee Teaching Assistants, Teaching Fellows, Graduate Student Assistants, and Graduate Student Researchers employed by the University of Pittsburgh at its Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania campus.

Excluded:  All other employees, including trainees, unpaid graduate students, faculty, staff, office clerical employees, non-professional employees, guards, and supervisors.   A13
Oakton Comm. Coll.: Lawsuit over Pension-Related Discharges Rejected
Filiek v. Oakton Community College, U.S. Dist. Cr. N.D. Illinois  Case No. 16 C 2902 

On February 27, 2018, United States District Court Judge Matthew F. Kennelly issued a decision granting summary judgment dismissing age discrimination lawsuits challenging a decision by Oakton Community College to discontinue employing part-time adjunct faculty members who are retirees under the State Universities Retirement System unless the college president finds a specific and unique need for a faculty member.  

The college's stated reason for its decision was the impact of a change in Illinois state retirement law concerning the reemployment of retirees, which mandated employer contributions to the retirement system under certain circumstances.  The new law did not mandate termination but it did result in increased college monitoring of the at-issue faculty salaries to avoid having to make additional retirement contributions. The college's new policy resulted in over 80 faculty members losing their jobs.

In granting summary judgment, for the defendants Judge Kennelly found that viewing the evidence most favorably to the plaintiffs, and granting all reasonable inferences to the evidence, they failed to present evidence from which a reasonable jury would conclude that college's decision was based on age rather than the faculty's status as retirement recipients. A14
PASSHE: Court Decision Concerning ULP Over Background Checks 
APSCUF v. Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board, C ommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, Case No.  966 C.D. 2017

On February 28, 2018, the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania affirmed in part, and reversed in part, a decision by the Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board that the Pennsylvania State System of Higher Education (PASSHE) did not engage in an unfair labor practice by unilaterally imposing a policy mandating that all faculty submit to background clearances and report criminal arrests or findings of child abuse.  

The court ruled that PASSHE did not have an obligation to bargain with the Association of Pennsylvania State College and University Faculties (APSCUF) with respect to background checks for faculty that are mandated by a 2014 child protection law but it was required to bargain with APSCUF concerning background checks for faculty who are exempted from the law.A15
Univ. of Cincinnati: Contract Clause Admissible in Wage Bias Trial
Storrs v. University of Cincinnati, United States Dist. Ct., S.D. Ohio, Western Division, Case No.1:15-CV-136 

In a pre-trial decision involving a wage discrimination claim commenced under the federal Equal Pay Act by former University of Cincinnati Assistant Professor Colleen McTague Storrs, United States District Court Judge Timothy S. Black made a ruling on the potential admissibility of a clause from the University of Cincinnati-AAUP contract establishing a procedure for faculty to see to correct wage disparities.  

Section 15.1 of the contract states:

"In the event that the Administration wishes to make salary or benefit adjustments which are more favorable than those called for in this Agreement to any individual member of the Bargaining Unit for purposes of matching a bona fide offer from a rival institution, of correcting inequities not otherwise dealt with in this Agreement, of correcting inequities proscribed by Article 4.1, including but not limited to those on the basis of gender or race, or of rewarding outstanding professional contributions, it is free to do so. Care will be taken to ensure that such professional contributions are clearly above and beyond those typically recognized through a merit increase program. When such individual adjustments are made, the Administration shall inform the AAUP of the adjustments thirty (30) days before they are implemented, and shall state the reasons with the specific documentation leading to the adjustment. In any one fiscal year the total dollar value of such awards shall not exceed one-half percent (.5%) of the Bargaining Unit member salary base, except that documented bona fide offers shall be an exception should the one-half percent (.5%) cap be reached. Adjustments made under this Article shall come from the reallocation of funds and shall not decrease the amounts available to other members of the Bargaining Unit as provided for by the provisions of this Agreement."

In his decision, Judge Black ruled that the contract grievance procedure is not clearly inadmissible at the pre-trial stage because the university's knowledge may be relevant to the willfulness of the pay discrepancy.  In reaching his ruling, the judge emphasized that the university does not intend to argue that Professor Storrs was obligated to exhaust her contractual remedies before bringing her Equal Pay Act claim. The judge further stated that proper jury instructions would avoid any alleged prejudice resulting from the admission of the contract clause.

The subject of wage discrimination will be examined during a panel discussion on April 16, 2018 as part of our 45th Annual Conference:

Research Panel: Wage Discrimination at Universities and Professional Schools
Kenneth Thornicroft, Professor of Law & Employment Relations, Gustavson School of Business, University of Victoria
Laurel Smith-Doerr, Director and Professor of Sociology, Institute for Social Science Research, University of Massachusetts
Rodrigo Dominguez-Villegas, University of Massachusetts
Ruth Milkman, Distinguished Professor, Sociology, CUNY Graduate Center, Moderator A16
Journal of Collective Bargaining in the Academy 

Journal of CBA Logo  

The Journal of Collective Bargaining in the Academy is the National Center's peer review multi-disciplinary journal that is co-edited by Jeffrey Cross, Eastern Illinois University, and Gary Rhoades, University of Arizona.   The Journal of Collective Bargaining in the Academy is supported, in part, by a generous contribution from TIAA-CREF and is hosted by the institutional repository of Eastern Illinois University.      
We encourage scholars, practitioners, and graduate students in the fields of collective bargaining, labor representation, labor relations, and labor history to submit articles for potential publication. 
The Journal recently published Volume 9 with new research and analysis:

The Slippery Slope of "Unique" by Daniel J. Julius counters the commonly held notion among academics that their collective bargaining is essentially different from other bargaining units.
Anti-Intellectualism, Corporatization, and the University by Henry Reichman touches on the culture of anti-intellectualism and connects it to the oft-referenced business model for higher education.    
The History Books Tell It? Collective Bargaining in Higher Education in the 1940s by William A. Herbert examines the little-known history of collective bargaining in higher education from the 1940s including the collective bargaining program instituted by the University of Illinois and the role of United Public Workers of America and its predecessor unions in negotiating the first contracts for faculty before the union was destroyed during the McCarthy era.  
Contracts with Community College Adjunct Faculty Members and Potential Supplemental Benefits to Increase Satisfaction by Kimberly Ann Page analyzes the benefits that can be attained for adjunct faculty through collective bargaining based on survey data from New  England community colleges.
Unionization and the Development of Policies for Non-Tenure Track Faculty: A Comparative Study of Research Universities by Karen Halverson Cross provides a cross-sectional analysis of adjunct contracts, covering a sample of research universities from across the nation including those with and without CBAs that include adjunct faculty.
Practitioner Perspective 
The Accidental Academic: Reflections on 50 Years in Academic Collective Bargaining by William Connellan gives a retrospective from a 50-year veteran in academic labor relations that reminds us of the complexity of bargaining, with not only the internal tensions, but the external dimension to what happens at the bargaining table.
National Center for the Study of Collective Bargaining
in Higher Education and the Professions |
H unter College, City University of New York
425 E 25th St.
Box 615
New York, NY 10010