Unionization Coming to Fruitition?

PLYMOUTH- NH "We like what's happening here....We have a voice in those things....Why would we want to change that?" Linda Levy, the Chair of the Department of Health Performance and the Athletic Training Program Director, asked. Some of her colleagues are asking that same question. Some of her colleagues are trying to answer her. 

Starting on Oct. 9, 2013 and going through Oct. 10, 2013, Levy and approximately 180 of her tenured and tenure-track colleagues will vote on whether to form a faculty union under the State Employees' Association (SEA) of New Hampshire, the local affiliate of the Service Employees International Union (SEIU). The vote will not be unanimous. 

Conflict has arisen among the faculty on a variety of issues concerning unionization. Some just don't want a union. Some believe a union will strengthen the voice of the faculty. Some think that the issues on campus can be fixed without unionizing. Some think a union will bring clarity to the work environment. All these things are up for debate. 

"This is a conversation has been going on for a long time...this is not a rash decision," said Cathie LeBlanc, the Chair of the Department of Communication and Media Studies and a professor of Digital Media. The discussion of unionization resurfaced and began picking up steam in 2010. 

In the summer of 2013, the New Hampshire Public Employee Labor Relations Board (PELRB) ruled that the proposed union would be composed of tenured and tenure-track faculty. This excludes clinical, contract, and research faculty. For some, this was unfair. "If someone is going to unionize then I believe we shouldn't be excluding anyone who is considered full-time faculty," Mark Fischler, the Chair of Criminal Justice Department and an Associate Professor, said. "I disagree with the judge's decision....I think looking at us as separate units, and not seeing us as one is detrimental to the...camaraderie that matters to me on this campus."  Gary McCool, the Coordinator of Reference Services, agrees with the PELRB's decision and says that "the people most interested in discussing this turned out to be tenured and tenure-track faculty...we asked, [contract, clinical, and research faculty] 'are you guys interested too?' Nothing....we didn't exclude anybody."

If a union comes to fruition, the possibility for increase in salaries and benefits lead some to believe that the expenses would rise as well. "The pie is only so big. If we get a lot more of the pie: At whose expense?" Fischler says. 

Some think that students would have to pick up the slack, "That's going to be tacked onto you tuition bill or their going to have to layoff other people who work at this institution," said Stephanie Halter, an Associate Professor of Criminal Justice. LeBlanc feels that that the unified voice of the faculty would be in the best interest of the students because "the faculty has the best interest of the students at heart."

During this time, the SEA separated themselves from the other unions, showing to be the most resourceful and responsive to PSU's full-time faculty. "The thing that set SEA apart is they're the people who are most knowledgeable about what is going on in Concord with the legislature, state budgets, state funds," said McCool. "So much of what we can do in the future is going to be dependent on whether we can maintain or increase that state funding," he added.

The SEA, the state's largest union does not impress everyone. Some point to the union's inexperience when it comes to teachers' unions. "Only 1.5% of the work the SEIU does in the United States has to do with full-time professors," said Fischler. 

The SEA is the same union representing the PSU adjunct (part-time) faculty union. Some see this as a potential problem. "Adjuncts and full-time faculty have conflicting interests...you shouldn't have the same union representing both," said Halter. She continued, "If the faculty wants more full-time faculty, that's taking away jobs from adjuncts." 

LeBlanc agrees that the adjuncts differ from tenured and tenure-track faculty, "There's a reason adjunct faculty created their own separate union: because their interests are different than ours. "We represent ourselves as faculty. The adjuncts are representing themselves as faculty. The SEIU provides support...I guess I don't see that argument of conflict of interest." Levy, though, believes that it could potentially stick the union in the middle, "if an adjunct has a complaint against full-time faculty, the union wouldn't be able to help because the union can't defend one or the other."

Unionizing, some believe, would set in place concrete bylaws. A union would bring, "greater clarity and transparency to our whole work conditions and environment," said McCool. "Right now, there's not a written contract that's not legally enforceable. We have policies, but there's a disclaimer that says policies can be changed at any time by the administration." 

McCool believes that it's important for the two sides, faculty and administration, to know the playing field. "Knowing the rules in advance, negotiated mutually,...I think that's hugely important...I think it's a win for the faculty. I think it's a win for the administration to have clarity and legally enforceable policies on both sides." 

Those against a union feel that their individual voice would disappear. "At Plymouth, we have valued...the ability to have town meeting style discussions...everybody has a voice, everybody has a vote," said Levy. "When you have a union, you can't talk with the administration directly. It's the union people talking...Faculty voices are lost." 

LeBlanc disagrees, "The union is us." She continued, saying that the union-voted faculty representatives would be there at the negotiating table. "When we sit down at the table it will be us...Faculty will be sitting at this table." McCool understands the argument that individual voices would be lost. "There's got to be some way to do it, they're not going to sit down with 180 people...but the representatives are elected by the members of the union." 

LeBlanc thinks that what one might lose in individual voice would be countered by the strength that unified voice would have. The union would provide a "unified faculty voice in matters of governance at the university...[and a] voice of the faculty when it comes to benefits and other issues of employment here." LeBlanc feels lucky to have an administration that listens to the faculty, but realizes that they aren't required to. "What a union does is it provides the faculty a unified voice...and have that voice be binding."

Fischler thinks the unified voice and the wholeness of a collective bargaining agreement would convolute the negotiation and problem-solving process, "It's one vote on a variety of issues. The way we have it today, we have almost 50 committees and we each collectively vote independently on each of those. If a union comes in, you might have 45 different issues that the collective bargaining agreement is going to decide, and we have to vote on all 45."  

Some feel that with the way things are now, there is no need for a union. "Are there issues that need work? 'Yes.' Do I think a union is the best way to solve those issues? 'No,'" Fischler explained, "At this point, I don't think it's the best thing considering our [good] relationship with the administration."

It's that positive relationship with the administration that leads some to believe that the time to unionize is now. "When faculty members have to rely the benevolence, reasonableness, or fairness of a particular administration...we put ourselves at risk. Administrators come and go," McCool states. "I would rather enter a negotiating process with people you have respect and trust in." 

LeBlanc believes this to be true as well, that the time to negotiate is not when times are bad, but when times are good. "I want to be communicating with them while we're negotiating...I trust that they will come to the table with good faith and they want what's best for the university... It's a perfect time to unionize."

This positive relationship with the administration gives them no reason to unionize. "We think we have an administration that looks out for us and looks out for every employee," said Levy. 

Halter feels that the way things are done now, with the administration keeping a hands-off approach and letting the teachers teach, gives them reason to be weary of unionizing, "I believe the autonomy of the departments would decrease." Levy agrees, "[The administration] never says to us, 'Let me know what you're doing so I can manage you better.' A union sets us up for that..."

Another part of unionizing that is debated amongst faculty is legal representation. LeBlanc spoke about an issue where if the administration hadn't stepped in, she felt that she would have had to take legal action against the university. "What that means for me, as a non-unionized employee, I would have to hire my own legal representation," LeBlanc explained. "If we're a unionized faculty, and I need legal representation...then the union will provide legal representation for me. I think it's unconscionable that we would leave our colleagues to fend for themselves finding legal representation." 

Others feel their money could be used for better purposes, "Paying for a lawyer to be there just in case I need them, I don't need a lawyer on retainer," said Halter.

One thing that's agreed upon, though, is the unimportance of money. Most feel that if they were concerned about money, they wouldn't be teaching. The potential for increase in salary is a nonissue for those in favor of the union, and the paying of dues (1.25% of their yearly income up to $67,000, meaning the maximum paid for dues is $837.50) is for the most part a nonissue for those against the union. 

On Oct. 9 and Oct. 10, tenured and tenure-track faculty will vote, and the debate will no longer matter. The grey area of all the issues on unionization will be simplified to black and white: yes or no.