Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Lauri White HEOC 803 Benedictine University. Introduction.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "Lauri White HEOC 803 Benedictine University. Introduction."— Presentation transcript:

1 Lauri White HEOC 803 Benedictine University

2 Introduction

3  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  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  Employee reaction to organizing and bargaining ◦ Varying degrees of reaction  Pennsylvania faculty 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  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  Explore the success and challenges of a joint bargaining unit, representing both faculty and staff, at a public two year community college.

8  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  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  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  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  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 Review of the Literature

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

15  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  Initial attitude toward unionization was fear for loss of traditional academic rights – protesting unionization (Boris, 2004)

17  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  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 Proposed Methodology

20  In-depth narrative qualitative case study exploring unique aspects of 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  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  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  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  Explore aspects of ◦ Preparation for negotiations ◦ Interaction with colleagues throughout negotiations ◦ Personal impressions of involvement in bargaining unit  Contributions to negotiation process / outcome

25  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  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  Location of study ◦ Public two-year public community college in Midwest

28  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 ◦ 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  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  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  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  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  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  Boris, R. J. (2004). Collective bargaining and community colleges. New Directions for Community Colleges, (125),  Castro, C. R. (2000). Community college faculty satisfaction and the faculty union. New Directions for Institutional Research, 2000(105), 45

36  Creswell, J.W. (2008). Educational Research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research. 3 rd 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 uyahoga_community_college_ful.html

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

38  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 (2 nd Ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.


Download ppt "Lauri White HEOC 803 Benedictine University. Introduction."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google