Presentation on theme: "Lauri White HEOC 803 Benedictine University. Introduction."— Presentation transcript:
Lauri White HEOC 803 Benedictine University
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?
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)
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)
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?
Explore the success and challenges of a joint bargaining unit, representing both faculty and staff, at a public two year community college.
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?
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?
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?
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?
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?
Review of the Literature
Contract – protecting the terms & conditions of employment (Boris, 2004) Contract in higher education – the distinguishing achievement of an organized faculty (Boris, 2004)
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)
Initial attitude toward unionization was fear for loss of traditional academic rights – protesting unionization (Boris, 2004)
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
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
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
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?
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
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
Explore aspects of ◦ Preparation for negotiations ◦ Interaction with colleagues throughout negotiations ◦ Personal impressions of involvement in bargaining unit Contributions to negotiation process / outcome
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
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
Location of study ◦ Public two-year public community college in Midwest
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.
◦ 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
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
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
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
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)
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
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
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
Hendrickson, R. M., & Education, L. A. (1999). The colleges, their constituencies, and the courts. second edition. monograph series, no. 64
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.