Navigating Challenges: Joint Bargaining at a Community College

1. Unique or Oddity? The Challenges & Successes of a Joint Bargaining Unit at a Public Two-Year Community College Lauri White HEOC 803 Benedictine University

2. Chapter 1 Introduction

3. History of Law & Higher Education • 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?

4. 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)

5. History of Law & Higher Education • Employee reaction to organizing and bargaining • Varying degrees of reaction • Pennsylvaniafaculty 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)

6. Research Issue • 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?

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

8. Research Questions • 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?

9. 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?

10. 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?

11. 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?

12. 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?

13. Chapter 2 Review of the Literature

14. Review of Literature • Contract – protecting the terms & conditions of employment (Boris, 2004) • Contract in higher education – the distinguishing achievement of an organized faculty (Boris, 2004)

15. 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)

16. Review of Literature • Initial attitude toward unionization was fear for loss of traditional academic rights – protesting unionization (Boris, 2004)

17. Review of the 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

18. 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

19. Chapter 3 Proposed Methodology

20. Methodology • In-depth narrative qualitative case study exploring unique aspectsof 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

21. 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?

22. 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

23. 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

24. Methodology • Explore aspects of • Preparation for negotiations • Interaction with colleagues throughout negotiations • Personal impressions of involvement in bargaining unit • Contributions to negotiation process / outcome

25. 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

26. 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

27. Methodology • Location of study • Public two-year public community college in Midwest

28. 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.

29. 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

30. 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

31. 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

32. 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

33. 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)

34. 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

35. References • 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

36. 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

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

38. 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.