An update from President Charles E. Young
I
have been asked many times recently by members of the faculty to
provide my views on the issues that have been raised by the representatives
of the UFF chapter at the University of Florida. It would probably
be both improper and unhelpful to get into a “they said/we
said” posture, but I do think it would be useful to:
- State the administration’s position with regard to the UFF request to be recognized as the collective bargaining agent for the faculty without going through the process prescribed by state law and the Public Employees Relations Commission for union recognition;
- Provide my views about further developing a real system of university shared governance; and,
- Respond to a few serious allegations or purported “facts” that if left unanswered would leave the faculty misinformed about these important issues.
The administration believes that the changes in the legal status of UF that became effective January 7 of this year resulted in the expiration of the prior contract with UFF. The prior contract was negotiated by the Board of Regents and UFF and applied to all of the universities in the former SUS system. UFF was certified as a statewide union and represented the entire faculty on most campuses, although UF faculty from Law, IFAS, and the Health Sciences were not included.
Since the certification of UFF as the bargaining unit for the faculty occurred as long ago as 1976, under substantially different circumstances, we believe that the faculty should be allowed to make a choice whether they want to be represented by a union, if so what union, what the shape and size of the bargaining unit should be, who should be members of the bargaining unit, and what issues should be bargainable. If UFF were to be voluntarily recognized as it proposes, it would be under the previous conditions without reference to any of these other important matters or to any changed conditions since 1976.
It is with regard to the last item in the list of issues set forth above (the bargainable issues under a contract) that I want to focus on initially. As most of you know, I am a strong advocate of shared governance as the appropriate mode for developing policies and managing the affairs of major research based universities. At UCLA, faculty involvement in the administration of the academic affairs of that campus was very strong. In my opinion that fact had much to do with the dramatic rise in quality UCLA experienced in its brief history. Therefore, I felt uncomfortable with the lack of involvement of the Senate when I came here in 1999. I believe on my initiative we have made great strides in rectifying that situation, and I have committed, during the remainder of my tenure at UF, to working with appropriate agencies of the Senate to bring about a full development of that relationship at UF.
Spelling out and getting the necessary approvals of delegations from the BOT to the President, those delegated through the President to the Senate and those delegated directly to the Senate will not be a routine matter. Nor should it be. This will be especially true with regard to matters of faculty privilege and tenure, academic freedom and faculty appointment and promotion. However, this task is made all the more difficult in an environment constrained by union practices and bargaining tactics. Indeed, under the previous agreement with UFF these could not be accomplished through the collegial, collaborative process of interaction between the administration and the Senate, but only through the quasi-confrontational process of labor negotiations.
I suggest that these are extremely important matters best handled by the faculty and administration through a mode of cooperative shared governance. Representatives of UFF have argued that these important matters should be dealt with by inclusion in labor contracts. They have also contended that faculty unionization is not only growing but also becoming the norm in those universities that we consider to be UF’s peers.
I would like to present a few facts, which I think are compelling in examining this important issue.
There is certainly no set of universities anywhere in the world in which the principles of academic freedom, faculty privilege and tenure and peer participation in faculty appointment and promotion processes are more fully and firmly entrenched than with the members of the Association of American Universities (AAU). With regard to faculty unionization, the following information helps to shape the discussion. The AAU is comprised of 61 U. S. and two Canadian research universities. While a handful of these universities have union contracts involving lecturers or similar appointees, only four of the U. S. universities (Florida among them) have bargaining units representing their tenure and tenure track faculty. Interestingly, no faculty has chosen to unionize following their admission to the AAU.
Clearly, faculty unionization among UF’s peers is neither the trend nor the norm. In addition to non-unionization there is one other very important commonality among AAU universities. The members of this organization are also those universities in which shared governance is most wide spread and deeply rooted.
Looking at these relationships from another vantage point, it can be seen that the categories of universities and colleges most highly unionized (community and state colleges or comprehensive universities) are those in which faculty participation, academic freedom and processes protecting tenure based on merit are least pervasive.
These data lead me to the conclusion that a strong system of shared governance is the best method of achieving and maintaining the faculty rights and privileges which are so important in bringing about an environment which nourishes academic quality in teaching, research and public service. Further, I believe faculty bargaining units are inimical to the growth of strong shared governance. For example, many vital faculty issues within the purview of the Senate are co-opted by the union as collective bargaining issues. Additionally, the bargaining agent cannot help but be competitive with the Senate for the loyalty and attention of the faculty, thereby further reducing the Senate’s effectiveness.
I am not against unions per se. As you may know, the BOT, on my recommendation, has agreed to voluntarily recognize the Graduate Assistant Union, because none of the arguments I have made with regard to faculty unionization, whether procedural or substantive, apply to them. But, for the reasons I have set forth, I would, if eligible to do so, vote against certification of the UFF or any other contender as a bargaining agent for the UF faculty.
In closing, I want to make it clear that if the faculty decide in an election, despite the concerns I have set forth, to vote for certification of UFF to represent them, we will work with the union fully and faithfully to make that system work as effectively as possible.
As this issue unfolds over the next few weeks and months I will undoubtedly have occasion orally or in writing to make further comments. In doing so, I would be happy to respond to any questions or comments you might have about these matters.