The Winds of Changes Shift: An Analysis of Recent Growth in Bargaining Units and Representation Efforts in Higher Education

This article analyzes data accumulated during the first three quarters of 2016 regarding completed and pending questions of representation involving faculty and student employees in higher education. It is part of a larger and continuing National Center research project that tracks faculty and graduate student employee unionization growth and representation efforts at private and public institutions of higher learning since January 1, 2013. The data presented in this article demonstrates that the rate of newly certified units at private colleges and universities since January 1, 2016 far outpaces new units in the public sector. There has been a 25.9% increase in certified private sector faculty units over the number of private sector units identified by the National Center for the Study of Collective Bargaining in Higher Education and the Professions in 2012, while the increase in the public sector has been 2.1%. The largest number of newly certified units involves non-tenure track faculty at private non-profit institutions. The second largest group of new units in higher education involves tenured and tenure-track faculty at public institutions. The average final election tallies demonstrate strong support for unionization among higher education faculty: 72.8% among private sector tenured/tenure-track and contingent faculty, and 73.3% among public sector tenure-track and contingent faculty. The article demonstrates that unionization efforts by private sector tenured and tenure-track faculty and faculty continue to be adversely impacted by two judicially-created doctrines, despite modifications made to the applicable standards in a 2014 National Labor Relations Board decision. It also examines pending and completed unionization efforts by graduate and research assistants in light of the recent NLRB decision finding that private sector graduate student employees are entitled to the associational rights guaranteed under federal labor law

In the Beginning, Long Time Ago: A Brief History of the National Center’s Origin and Evolution

This article presents a brief overview of events leading to the creation of the National Center for the Study of Collective Bargaining in Higher Education and the Professions (National Center) in 1972 at the City University of New York (CUNY) and then summarizes the National Center’s evolving leadership, programming, research, and publications over the past half-century. The article is tied with the theme of the National Center’s 50th anniversary conference in March 2023: Collective Bargaining in Higher Education: Looking Back, Looking Forward: 1973-2023. It demonstrates the uniqueness of the National Center’s origin as a higher education labor-management research center, distinct in character, and structure from labor education and labor studies programs at other institutions. While the National Center’s priorities and methods have evolved over the decades, it remains an interdisciplinary research center that organizes national and regional conferences, hosts webinars, collects data, and produces scholarship on unionization and collective bargaining in higher education

No Direction Home: Will the Law Keep Pace With Human Tracking Technology to Protect Individual Privacy and Stop Geoslavery

Increasingly, public and private employers are utilizing human tracking devices to monitor employee movement and conduct. Due to the propensity of American labor law to give greater weight toemployer property interests over most employee privacy expectations, there are currently few limitations on the use of human tracking in employment. The scope and nature of current legal principles regarding individual privacy are not sufficient to respond to the rapid development and use of human tracking technology. The academic use of the phrase “geoslavery” to describe the abusive use of such technology underscores its power. This article examines the use of such technology under current federal and state law and suggests potential means for developing greater legal protections against the abusive use of the technology and the intrusion into personal privacy

No Direction Home: Will the Law Keep Pace With Human Tracking Technology to Protect Individual Privacy and Stop Geoslavery

Increasingly, public and private employers are utilizing human tracking devices to monitor employee movement and conduct. Due to the propensity of American labor law to give greater weight toemployer property interests over most employee privacy expectations, there are currently few limitations on the use of human tracking in employment. The scope and nature of current legal principles regarding individual privacy are not sufficient to respond to the rapid development and use of human tracking technology. The academic use of the phrase “geoslavery” to describe the abusive use of such technology underscores its power. This article examines the use of such technology under current federal and state law and suggests potential means for developing greater legal protections against the abusive use of the technology and the intrusion into personal privacy

The History Books Tell It? Collective Bargaining in Higher Education in the 1940s

This article presents a history of unionization and collective bargaining in higher education during and just after World War II, decades before the establishment of statutory frameworks for labor representation. It examines the collective bargaining program adopted by the University of Illinois in 1945, along with contracts negotiated at other institutions, which demonstrated support for employee self-organization. It will also presents counter-examples of institutions using the courts and congressional investigators to defeat unionization efforts. . Lastly, the article will examine the role of United Public Workers of America (UPWA) and its predecessor unions in organizing and negotiating on behalf of faculty, teachers, instructors and staff on campus. The first known collective agreements applicable to faculty, teachers and instructors were negotiated by those unions before UPWA was destroyed during the domestic Cold War

The History Books Tell It? Collective Bargaining in Higher Education in the 1940s

This article presents a history of unionization and collective bargaining in higher education during and just after World War II, decades before the establishment of statutory frameworks for labor representation. It examines the collective bargaining program adopted by the University of Illinois in 1945, along with contracts negotiated at other institutions, which demonstrated support for employee self-organization. It will also presents counter-examples of institutions using the courts and congressional investigators to defeat unionization efforts. . Lastly, the article will examine the role of United Public Workers of America (UPWA) and its predecessor unions in organizing and negotiating on behalf of faculty, teachers, instructors and staff on campus. The first known collective agreements applicable to faculty, teachers and instructors were negotiated by those unions before UPWA was destroyed during the domestic Cold War

Shelter from the Storm: Rekindling Research on Collective Bargaining and Representation Issues

The National Center for the Study of Collective Bargaining in Higher Education and the Professions (National Center) is a four-decade old institution that is supported by and located at Hunter College, City University of New York. The National Center was founded in the wake of the granting of collective bargaining rights by various states and localities to public employees including higher education faculty members and shortly after the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) asserted jurisdiction over private institutions of higher education. Consistent with its mission, the National Center intends to be an engine for rekindling, incubating and promoting research and analysis of issues connected with collective bargaining, labor representation, labor history and labor relations. This article describes some of the means that the National Center intends on employing toward meeting that goal. In addition, it highlights certain contemporary issues it is following, including: the NLRB\u27s current reexamination of the factors set forth in Yeshiva University for determining the managerial status of full-time faculty, the organizing and representation of contingent faculty, and the labor relations and legal issues associated with social media

Just Cause Discipline for Social Networking in the New Guilded Age: Will the Law Look the Other Way?

We live and work in an era with the moniker of the New Gilded Age to describe the growth in societal income inequality. The designation is not limited to evidence of the growing gap in wealth distribution, but also the sharp rise in employment without security, including contingent and part-time work. This article examines the state of workplace procedural protections against discipline as they relate to employee use of social media in the New Gilded Age. In our times, reactions to the rapid distribution of troublesome electronic communications through social networking tend to eclipse patience for enforceable workplace procedures. The advent of social media and the decline of job security have created a perfect storm that raises the question of whether labor law will look the other way when it comes to the principles of workplace fairness and justice. The article begins with President William McKinley’s introduction of the doctrine of just cause discipline into American labor law in 1897, during the Gilded Age, at the same time that the common law at-will doctrine was continuing to gestate. McKinley’s unilateral executive action established principles that remain the cornerstone of just cause discipline: proper notice, a fair evidentiary investigation, an opportunity to be heard, and nondiscriminatory treatment. The article then turns to the development of just cause standards in the 20th Century, which added other elements such as notice of workplace policies and the use of progressive discipline. Lastly, the article examines how just cause principles should be applied to allegations of electronic misconduct in the New Gilded Age to ensure reasonable and prudent disciplinary results, employee acceptance of adverse employment decisions, and a decreased likelihood of litigated claims of unlawful discrimination