Some Pros and Cons to Faculty Collective Bargaining, by Sarah Ryan |
||
Issue |
Pro |
Con |
Political action, voice |
If faculty chose a union with members at other Washington state campuses, they would have a statewide voice on higher education and faculty issues and staff to organize lobbying or political efforts. |
Positions taken by a union may not align with individual viewpoints on some issues. |
Financial |
Unions usually succeed in improving members’ pay and securing benefits. |
Dues payments |
Governance |
Existing governance and academic decision making practice is protected; a union contract could protect economic, workload, and individual rights. |
Union meetings and negotiations add more governance duties for some. |
Negotiations |
Trustees would be compelled to negotiate with faculty. |
Negotiations may affect the campus climate. The role of the faculty representative to the board of trustees may need clarifying. |
Contracts |
Faculty compensation and benefits, other procedures would be negotiable and committed to a binding contract. |
Faculty may also be bound by contracts, as well as administrators. |
Duty of fair representation |
Unions are compelled to represent every member of the bargaining unit. |
Faculty who are members may end up paying dues and representing non-members or non-dues-payers. A minority of those represented can consume a majority of resources. |
Community relationships |
Active union members tend to stay current and active on issues affecting faculty. Faculty could become part of statewide labor movement, increasing support from some community members and adding political clout. |
Unionization inevitably brings up divisions or differences that previously were hidden. Some trustees or others in administration may feel betrayed. |
|
|
|