Frequently Asked Questions About Collective Bargaining
The main issues surrounding the current effort for collective bargaining:
Real Shared Governance
Salary Issues
University Budget
Merit Pay
Health Benefits
Workload Policy on a Diverse Campus
Real Shared Governance -This is our goal - Real Shared Governance. While the term
shared governance has been used at UA since President Elliott's tenure, the reality has
been something less than the term implies. Rather than shared governance, UA
administration has followed a top-down model in which policy is handed down to the
Faculty Senate. Under collective bargaining, our goal is Real Shared Governance -ensuring faculty a voice in decision-making on vital issues such as University priorities,
salary and merit pay policy, health benefits, workload, and staffing and personnel issues.
We do not seek confrontation, polarization, or to deprive our administrators of the
important roles that we need them to play. We do believe, however, that a healthier,
more unified campus will emerge in a climate of Real Shared Governance.
Salary Issues - Our salary situation has declined for most ranks. Collective bargaining
campuses have fared much better, even in the identical fiscal climate. There has been no
sustained effort to address salary compression, gender equity, or leapfrogging of salaries.
Salary lost now is never regained, and its effect compounds and lingers into retirement.
The benefit of our guaranteed involvement in salary policy is not limited to just one year,
but would best be felt cumulatively over many years. We would always be at the table,
balancing fiscal issues, faculty interests, and the overall benefit to the university.
University Budget - What are the University’s priorities, and what voice do faculty have
in shaping them? Some PBC figures suggest that the compensation budget for full time
faculty, staff and administration show some inordinate growth of administration.
Merit Pay - This is symptomatic of both salary problems AND lack of shared
governance. The policy was mandated by the Board without any input from the faculty.
Nor were there policies in place in many departments to even implement it. There still
aren’t. This shows complete lack of concern for shared governance and for criterionbased decisions. Faculty were never allowed to discuss the wisdom or efficacy of such a
policy. Other larger salary issues, such has equity, compression and leapfrogging have
been studiously avoided.
Health Benefits - These too will be eroding soon. Combined with our poor salary
increases, faculty and their families will be losing significant ground in salaries and
benefits. This will amount to net losses of income.
Work Load Policy - Teaching loads have been increased in the Department of
Communications without faculty input. Where might that happen next? How does this
affect the quality of the teaching, research and learning environment?
**I’m satisfied with the current situation on campus. Why do I need Collective
Bargaining?
If you agree with the following statements, you may not be ready for Collective
Bargaining.

In terms of individual faculty well being, the University administration
has done a good job of taking all issues into consideration.

As a member of the faculty, I feel very good about my potential to influence
decisions on campus because the administration respects my opinion.

My salary is right about where it ought to be under the current UA merit system.

Decisions on faculty salary are generally fair across campus.

The tenure system is antiquated and in need of a complete overhaul,
such as five-year reviews for full professors.

We have as many tenure-track faculty in my department as we need.

The faculty senate has been a reliable organ for getting faculty issues into
discussions at upper administrative levels.

The University budget is tight, therefore faculty should not expect to receive
regular pay raises.

Matters of University policy and teaching load are best left to administrators.

Students are always considered when increases in fees are made

The number of part time instructors relative to full time instructors is just about
right.

Faculty evaluation of administrators plays a meaningful role on the UA campus.

The University adequately rewards quality undergraduate teaching.

Increasing the number of high-level administrators is justified and has a positive
outcome on the faculty and student body.

Administrative salaries are appropriate relative to faculty salaries.

Faculty have played a meaningful role on all search committees for UA
administrators.

The University has become a better place to work during the past several years.

I am confident that the UA administration will maintain our current level of
benefits
**FAQ: What is Fair Share?
While we would hope that all faculty in the bargaining unit would join AAUP
after the election, we know that there are some who will not choose to do so. However,
since the contract covers all members of the bargaining unit, regardless of whether or not
they are AAUP members, and since the law requires the AAUP to represent all unit
members fairly and equitably regardless of dues paying status, many AAUP chapters in
Ohio and elsewhere (e.g., Wright State, Cleveland State, Central State) have negotiated a
provision in their contract requiring payment of a “fair share” to cover the cost of
negotiating and administering the collective bargaining agreement. The amount of this
fair share is normally 80-85% of dues (which are normally .75-1% of base salary).
While state law does permit negotiation of such an arrangement (also called an
“agency fee”), it is the chapter’s decision whether or not to seek to negotiate such a
provision. That decision, along with other decisions about the initial contract proposal,
will be made by the AAUP chapter members after the election.
**FAQ: Will I Be at Risk by Signing a Collective Bargaining Card?
A number of junior faculty have asked whether signing a collective bargaining
card can put them at risk? This is an important question. Akron-AAUP will keep your
support absolutely confidential. Therefore, you will not be at risk by signing a collective
bargaining card.
How Your Card is Protected.
If you sign a collective bargaining authorization card, that fact will be kept in the
strictest confidence. Your card will NEVER be shown to any University official. Once
the Akron-AAUP receives your signed card, it will be given to one of three chapter
officers for safe keeping. The cards will be kept off campus in a secure location. When
the Akron-AAUP has collective bargaining authorization cards signed by two-thirds of
the university faculty, we will file those cards with the State Employee Relations Board
(SERB). This action will lead to an election, where you will then be allowed to cast a
secret ballot voting either Yes or No on the Akron-AAUP as your collective bargaining
agent. The fact that you signed a card will not be divulged to the University. Similarly,
the University will not know how you cast your secret ballot.
If you have decided in favor of collective bargaining, sign your authorization card
and return it in the postage paid envelope sent to you at the start of the campaign. Or,
you can contact us and we will confidentially get you an authorization card.
Through collective bargaining, we can ensure real shared governance.
**FAQ: Will I Have to Strike?
This is probably one of the most common questions about collective bargaining
on campus. Images of faculty walking picket lines come to mind, and the whole thing
seems less than appealing. The question stands: will we have to strike?
The answer is: only if you want to.
Reason and Collegiality
Actually, the power of reason and collegiality will stand administrators and
faculty in good stead when we bargain together as equals. First, we all share a
fundamental commitment to creating an enriched learning environment. Second, we
believe in the power of information and well developed arguments. Third, our campus is
populated with faculty and administrators who work together routinely throughout the
year. All of these factors should contribute to a climate of constructive negotiation over
important issues.
What happens when we disagree over key issues? We’ll do what you would
expect: discuss, argue, debate, compromise, weigh options, and ultimately come to an
agreement. If there is an impasse, Ohio’s labor laws (ORC 4117) provide options to help
avoid strikes:

Mediation – provided through the State Employee Relations Board

Fact-Finding – provided by a neutral panel

Mutually-Agreed Dispute Settlement Procedures – such as arbitration
For all of these reasons, academic strikes are rare in Ohio and the nation.
Kent State University has had a collective bargaining unit for 20+ years and has
not had a strike. The University of Cincinnati has had collective bargaining for longer
than Kent and has had three brief work stoppages.
The power to bargain as equals can lead to the best ideas and solutions!
**FAQ: What are the Costs and Benefits of Collective Bargaining to Students?
This is, perhaps, the most important question of all. From the perspective of most faculty
members, students are central to our careers and come first in our professional priorities.
What other campus entity is more likely to know our student body better than the UA
faculty?
We see them in class, help them chart their professional course in advising, write letters
of recommendation, and help them keep an eye on the job market. We, their faculty,
know the sacrifices students make to come to college. We believe students know the
conditions under which we work (Read the The Buchtelite Online November 8, 2001
student opinion).
To address the issue of meeting student needs and expectations, we offer a brief analysis
of how
students have been fairing with a faculty without collective bargaining and our
prediction of the
impact that AAUP representation will probably have:
Tuition – just since 1996 undergraduate tuition has increased each year to the maximum
level allowed by the state legislature, with an additional increase having been added this
January due to budget cuts from the state. Will collective bargaining at the UA further
financially burden students? Not at all likely. Our sister institutions that have collective
bargaining have been able to creatively address a whole range of governance, benefit and
salary issues while operating in the same fiscal environment as our university – and
keeping tuition increases within the same range as we have at the UA.
Fees – since 1997 students have been burdened with technology fees, building use fees,
and other costs to help the university pay for questionable services to students – services
that, at the very least, were not deliberated over with the faculty or students (i.e., the
decision to create a wireless campus for the benefit of students, 75% of whom are
commuters and will only slightly benefit from such technology). Faculty with a collective
voice would have moved the discussion about the implementation of such programs in
different directions.
Other real costs - The quality and consistency of instruction in many of our academic
programs has been compromised. Since 1997 we have seen seasoned faculty jump at the
chance to retire early. Former University President Marion Rubel referred to the
massive ERIPs as a brain drain. ERIP replacement faculty (when they are actually
replaced) join the faculty only to leave after a few years, largely because of the very
issues we are discussing here - salary compression, reduction in operating funds, no real
voice in academic development.
High faculty turnover, while good in the short run for the UA budget, weakens programs,
jeopardizes accreditations, and reduces the overall quality of the institution. Collective
bargaining offers junior faculty the one component they do not now possess – the
opportunity for real shared governance. Empowered faculty are reliable, motivated
faculty.
Access to full time tenure track professors - with fewer tenure track positions and a push
to continually increase enrollment, the competition for face-to-face interaction with
professors also increases. The College of Education, for example, is one of the
university's oldest and most productive academic colleges in terms of student generated
revenue and also one of the hardest hit in terms of faculty losses. While doing its best to
keep up with demands for their time, the education faculty is becoming overwhelmed.
One of the administrative responses to the institution's inability to hold tenure track
faculty in place is to offer non-tenure, multi-year contracts to teaching professionals.
Coupled with over-reliance on part time instruction, this approach simply reduces the
number of chances any given student might have to interact with faculty who have a
history of devotion to the institution. This is a solution that, intended or not, will effect
even further declines in academic program quality (this is already happening) and provide
the basic framework for the dismantling of the tenure system. Collective bargaining
would allow faculty more of a voice in the actual implementation of such strategies.
**FAQ: Will Collective Bargaining Mean an End to Shared Governance &
Collegiality
Some of you may be concerned that collective bargaining will create an
adversarial environment on campus, and that shared governance and collegiality will be
lost in the bargain.
However, other collective bargaining campuses in Ohio have gone before us, and
comments from faculty there are instructive. Prof. David Smith (Architecture), past chair
of the University of Cincinnati Faculty Senate, said this about collegiality and collective
bargaining on his campus:
In terms of collegiality, I would suggest that collective bargaining has actually
overcome some of our general tendencies to segregate ourselves into different
academic units…Since UC is a very diverse institution, with open access units and
graduate programs with highly restrictive admissions, with basic teaching units and
research units, I find it amazing that we are able to collectively agree when
negotiations are involved. And in this process, I also believe that we are forced to
discuss some of these different expectations. (Union & Collegiality at the University
of Cincinnati, Wright State University AAUP, n.d.).
Remember, this comment comes from a campus with a 20+ year history of collective
bargaining. Yet it is one of the preeminent public institutions in Ohio, as often noted by
our own University President.
If we all value shared governance, and every constituency on campus says it
does, then wouldn’t we want to have REAL shared governance? If faculty should be
involved in key issues of teaching, learning, salaries, and benefits, then why not create a
guaranteed mechanism to give faculty power in discussing and negotiating these issues?
If an administration were opposed to this, wouldn’t it be saying that it is opposed to the
faculty having any real voice?
The administration and the Board have real power in making decisions. No one
wants to deprive our administration of appropriate leadership and decision-making. We
do, however, want to work with them to ensure that all views and interests are fully
considered and, where appropriate, subject to negotiation.
Real shared governance, collegiality and a genuine faculty voice will produce a
healthier and more productive environment at UA.
**FAQ: Will Collective Bargaining Mean an End to Merit?
In a word, NO. What it DOES mean is that faculty will consider merit along with other critical
salary issues consistently ignored by the administration, such as compression, equity, and the leapfrogging
of salaries.
How the Administration Implemented Merit. The administration imposed the current merit pay
policy without faculty input. There was no real shared governance in the process. Faculty are expected to
compete with one another over a small merit salary pool, yet the administration has no corresponding
obligation to provide a sufficiently large salary pool to meet either across-the-board or merit components.
You are only meritorious to the degree that the salary pool allows. Lately, this has not been much. We
have received salary pools that pose as merit increases but which in reality do not even cover the cost of
living.
How the Akron AAUP Views Merit. Under collective bargaining and real shared governance,
faculty could have pointed out inequities, including the absence in many departments of a process to
determine merit. Under collective bargaining we could have negotiated over small salary pools that barely
match inflation. We would have been in a position to argue that being retained, tenured and promoted by
your colleagues merited a significant increase in salary.
Through collective bargaining, faculty will have a voice in the entire salary program on campus.
Through our negotiations we will be able to bargain for what we think are reasonable and fair salary
policies that address the range of salary issues we have. One component of such a policy would be merit.
In fact, other collective bargaining campuses, such as KSU, have included merit components in their
contracts.
Collective bargaining will ensure real shared governance on salary issues, including merit!
**FAQ: Are You Undecided?
Like many of your colleagues on campus, you may feel convinced that faculty
have lost significant power in matters that relate directly to their work (teaching load,
class size, program development, salaries, health benefits, RTP). But maybe you have
doubts as to whether collective bargaining is the solution.
We would like you to consider the following points.

Collective bargaining is an increasingly common choice among faculty around the
country and in Ohio (with 10 AAUP collective bargaining campuses).

The reasons for its growing popularity are simple: it creates a mechanism that
ensures that faculty are always involved in the decisions that most affect them.

Through collective bargaining, the collective wisdom of the faculty can be
brought to bear on important campus policies and programs that impact our lives
and those of our students.

In short, collective bargaining ensures true shared governance.
Many faculty members on this campus are alarmed at an increasingly top-down
management style that marginalizes faculty. The Faculty Senate, on which many of us
have served and do serve, has no real power. Shared governance on this campus has been
reduced to the administration making policy and the faculty implementing it.
If faculty members believe that they should have a guaranteed say on the critical
issues of the day, then how can we best accomplish this? The choice is clear. Collective
bargaining is the mechanism to ensure real shared governance.