ACRL News Issue (B) of College & Research Libraries 241 Report on ACRL Preconference Report on the ACRL Preconference Institute on Collective Bargaining in Higher Education: Its Implications for Governance and Faculty Status for Librarians Submitted by Jean Whalen Personnel Librarian State University of New York at Albany The distinctive clang of cable car bells could be heard in the distance as 160 librarians gath­ ered in San Francisco to attend the ACRL Pre­ conference Institute on Collective Bargaining held June 27-28, 1975. The growing aware­ ness of the implications of collective bargaining on higher education is reflected in recent litera­ ture and made this program particularly time­ ly. Prior to the institute, participants had been supplied with material assembled by the Aca­ demic Collective Bargaining Information Ser­ vice, which addressed in detail some of the ma­ jor issues of collective bargaining in higher edu­ cation today and provided a comprehensive perspective for this two-day institute. Participants had an opportunity to meet and socialize at a reception in the San Francisco Hilton Hotel on Thursday evening before con­ vening for the first General Session on Friday morning. C. James Schmidt, chairperson of the ACRL Academic Status Committee, introduced the session in a speech addressing the back­ ground of the institute and its goals and iden­ tifying some of the key issues of collective bar­ gaining in the academic environment. In the fall of 1973, as ACRL began plans for a pro­ gram on “Governance” for the ALA Conference in New York City (July 1974), it became evi­ dent that the topic was too complicated to cov­ er in a single two-hour meeting, and a commit­ tee was formed to plan a preconference insti­ tute on collective bargaining for 1975. Millicent Abell was chairperson of this group which in­ cluded Mary Lou Cobb, Marjorie Dennin, and John Haak. The goal of the conference was to provide information about collective bargaining which today covers 15 percent of the faculty in higher education and 10 percent of the in­ stitutions in higher education—and particularly to address the issue of collective bargaining as it impinges on faculty status for librarians. Among the key issues identified by Mr. Schmidt was the jurisdictional morass which may result from the definition of the bargaining unit and the choice of bargaining agent. He pointed out that librarians should study the possible impli­ cations of collective bargaining on patterns of library service and on the organizational struc­ ture of libraries. The first speaker of this session was Donald Wollett, director of employee relations, State of New York, whose topic was “The Nature of Collective Bargaining and its Relationship to Governance in Higher Education.” Mr. Wollett described and compared the components and characteristics of both a governance system and a collective bargaining system with an emphasis on identifying areas of conflict which may de­ velop as a result of differences in these charac­ teristics. For example, in a governance system authority is shared by choice rather than by compulsion, and the authority of the governing body can be recalled with no effective legal re­ course. Also, collective bargaining typically deals with a much narrower scope of issues than those involved in a governance system, yet bargaining units are more broadly based than traditional governance systems, since the criterion for identifying the group of employees affected by the decisions of management (i.e., the bargaining unit) becomes “community of interest” rather than scholarship. Some of the tensions which may exist as a result of the dif­ ferences between governance and collective bargaining systems are found in the difficulty of identifying management, in the scope of sub­ ject matter, and in the areas of bargaining pro­ cedures, personnel administration, and funding. In the second keynote speech, Kenneth P. Mortimer, Pennsylvania State University, de­ scribed “a survey of experience in academic collective bargaining.” He pointed out that, un­ til now, collective bargaining has been primari­ ly a phenomenon of the public sector and that, of the 358 campuses on which faculty members have chosen collective bargaining agents, 86 percent are public institutions. The growth of collective bargaining parallels the enactment of state bargaining laws. By 1973, 161 institu­ tions of higher education were organized under collective bargaining, but a loss of momentum has been noted since that year. Currently twen­ ty to twenty-three states have statutes permit­ ting collective bargaining. However, these state statutes rarely recognize college and university faculty as different from industry workers. Both the bargaining structure and the scope of nego­ tiations vary from state to state as states adopt their own patterns based on prior structure. Adopting collective bargaining introduces a po­ 242 tential set of new actors and redistribution of roles as union officials and arbitrators enter the academic picture bringing with them a basic set of assumptions about labor relations. Mr. Mortimer discussed academic govern­ ance and its form in collective bargaining. It is traditional that faculty have a role in “manage­ ment decisions” (planning, staffing, quality con­ trol), although there are few studies document­ ing the extent of faculty participation in gov­ ernance. Some obvious questions, therefore, concern the relationship between collective bar­ gaining and academic senates. Are senates like­ ly to atrophy in competition with collective bar­ gaining? Are the two contradictory rather than complimentary? There seems to be a growing formalization of the relationship between these two decision-making bodies. The union may be viewed by some as a means of supplanting the power base of a strong senate, and it appears evident that a senate will only continue in com­ petition with collective bargaining where that senate is responsive to the needs of its constitu­ ency. Student involvement in collective bargaining adds yet another dimension to this phenomenon in higher education. This issue is also forcing a new look at the role of nonteaching profes­ sionals in faculty governance. The question of full-time versus part-time employees and their conditions of employment is another unresolved question. The second General Session featured a panel discussing “alternative organizational ap­ proaches to governance and status issues.” The first three speakers represented the three major bargaining agents who have contracts in public and private higher education today. Dirck Brown, National Education Association, indicat­ ed that the position of NEA on economical, governance, and faculty status issues is that there should be equality between librarians and faculty as it pertains to professional status and compensation. There should be for all faculty protection of professional rights. Charles McClain, American Association of University Professors, emphasized AAUP’s con­ cern for improving the professional welfare of faculty in higher education. In his opinion, the implications of college governance in collective bargaining are seriously diminished or have never been fully realized. In his remarks, Warren Kessler, president, United Professors of California (an affiliate of AFT) observed that AFT has been an advocate of collective bargaining for higher education for some time. The AFT position was summarized as one not of promises but of offerings of sub­ stance— one which offers structure and federa­ tion among autonomous locals and thus one which would allow librarians to define their needs on an individual basis. The two final panelists presented different perspectives. David Feller, president of the Berkeley Faculty Association, stated that the decision to embrace collective bargaining should be made by the constituency of the sen­ ate. Addressing the question of professionalism and unions, Mr. Feller said that people make the union—not the label which a union may re­ ceive. The faculty needs an organizational voice to effectively represent it in matters concerning faculty welfare. In the absence of a bargaining agent, decisions may be made without consult­ ing faculty and, as employees, faculty need their representatives participating in making those decisions. The opposite viewpoint— advocating reten­ tion of the current faculty governance system rather than adopting collective bargaining— was presented by Daniel Orr, University of California, San Diego. He stated that academic groups should define goals in a manner consist­ ent with the goals of the university and suggest­ ed that a careful look be taken to ascertain just what unionization has accomplished. Labor unions are at an advantage in a recession, and we are in an era of reduction of public support of research and reduced enrollment in higher education. The day’s program ended with a reception which again afforded participants an opportuni­ ty to meet informally and pursue ideas generat­ ed during the sessions. On Saturday morning the third General Ses­ sion was initiated by a paper delivered by Jean Kennelly, University of Washington. Her topic was “The Current Status of Academic Librari­ ans’ Involvement in Collective Bargaining.” During the two months preceding the confer­ ence, Ms. Kennelly had surveyed library per­ sonnel officers at 130 of those four-year colleges and universities whose faculties were identified by The Chronicle of Higher Education as hav­ ing adopted collective bargaining. The survey attempted to verify factual information con­ cerning the impact of bargaining on the faculty status of librarians and requested comments on twenty-four issues and conditions relating to that status and having a potential for change. Survey results indicated that in only three of the twenty-four areas polled was substantial change documented: due process, salaries, and fringe benefits. There was predominantly no change in the areas of relationship with stu­ dents, selection of paraprofessionals, and work day and only very minor changes in the remain­ ing areas surveyed. Concerning the implications of bargaining on faculty status, 51 percent reported no effect since faculty status was a reality prior to col­ lective bargaining (9 percent reported faculty status a direct result of collective bargaining; Continued on page 262 An overflow audience of ACRL members in San Francisco heard Peter Drucker describe issues in the management of pub­ lic service institutions. The Drucker program was one of more than twenty-five ACRL programs held during the ALA con­ ference. H. William Axford, presi­ dent ACRL, reports to the membership at its annual business meeting June 30. Rare Books and Manuscripts Preconference participants heard Donald D. Eddy, Cornell University, advocate the preparation of the eighteenth-century short-title catalog which would use the basic elements of the Anglo-American Cataloging Rules adapted to the MARC format and stored in the OCLC data base. The publication of an eighteenth-century STC, planned by Bowker Publishing Co., Ltd. and University Microfilms Ltd. was announced at the RBMS preconference by John W. Jolliffe (right), keeper of the catalogues at the Bodleian Library. W il­ liam B. Todd (left), editor of the Papers of the Bibliographical Society of Amer­ ica, and Herman W . Leibert, librarian emeritus of the Beinecke Rare Book and Manuscript Library, consider the matter. The impact of collective bargain­ ing on the governance and faculty status for college and university librarians was the theme of the preconference planned by ACRL’s A c a d e m ic S ta tu s C o m m itte e . Charles McClain, AÁUP, and John Haak, University of California, San Diego, talk with David Feller, University of California, Berkeley, about the role of faculty senates in university governance. 243 262 ACRL P recon feren ce Continued from page 242 10 percent reported faculty status was negotiat­ ed but not achieved; 8 percent reported achiev­ ing faculty privileges, but not status; 3 percent reported that librarians were not interested in achieving faculty status). In summary, for the most part, librarians are included in faculty bargaining units. Library administrators are included in one-third of those units. Substantial changes as a result of collective bargaining were reported in only three of the twenty-four areas surveyed and areas of material gain ( salaries, fringe benefits) were affected more than areas of decision mak­ ing. During the next hour, participants selected one of nine group sessions for small group dis­ cussions. Group leaders included David Feller, Johanna Ross, Lothar Spang, Lorraine Guirlani and Joan Edgar, John Weatherford, Jeanette Carter, Anne Commerton, Barbara Marks, and Daniel Orr—several of whom had recently au­ thored articles in library literature on the topic of collective bargaining. The final paper of the institute was delivered by Gwendolyn Cruzat on “Issues and Strategies for Academic Librarians.” Ms. Cruzat identi­ fied five areas for elaboration: enabling legisla­ tion; the posture of negotiators; characteristics of the faculty; the treatment of librarians in collective bargaining; and faculty status. She noted in surveying the nature of those institu­ tions of higher education engaged in collective bargaining that no major research-oriented uni­ versities bave yet turned to collective bargain­ ing. Traditionally the type of environment in which collective bargaining has flourished has been that of the two-year college. The correla­ tion between the power of the faculty self-gov­ erning mechanism and the failure to embrace collective bargaining seems high. In summarizing the presentations and dis­ cussions of the institute, Kenneth P. Mortimer again noted the special nature of universities and observed that 20 percent of the institu­ tions of higher education which have adopted collective bargaining are former teacher’s col­ leges which are not dominated by the shared authority concept, but rather by administrators. Among the variety of motivational factors re­ sulting in collective bargaining, perhaps the strongest is the desire to preserve the status quo and keep a system of effective faculty govern­ ance from erosion. As he discussed the scope of contracts, Mr. Mortimer remarked that the more simple the mission of the institution, the more detailed the contract seems to be. Finally, he advanced four avenues of action for librarians who are contemplating collective bargaining. (1 ) Codify the experiences of other academic librarians. Establish contact with the National Center for Collective Bargaining and the Academic Collective Bargaining Informa­ tion Service. (2 ) Collective bargaining is a po­ litical situation and given the small percentage of librarians in the work force, it is probably unwise to attempt to establish separate bargain­ ing units. (3 ) Any voluntary organization can be dominated by a minority. Union politics are usually dominated and controlled by “dues pay­ ing” members and librarians should be aware of their potential power in this area. (4 ) Be­ cause national policies don’t always control lo­ cal policies, take a careful look at the individ­ uals (not the organization) who are attempting to organize you. In retrospect, I would conclude that the two­ fold objectives of the institute were achieved. Individual participants were provided informa­ tion on the nature of collective bargaining and its influence on bargaining agents as well as on academic library experiences with collective bargaining. And a substantial contribution has been made to the ACRL Academic Status Com­ mittee’s development of materials and programs on the issues of governance and status which can benefit the profession at large. ■ ■ Fantastico The General Libraries of the Universi­ ty of Texas at Austin maintains one of the broadest Latin American acquisitions programs in the United States. Appropri­ ately, it has provided its Latin American cataloging copy to the international li­ brary community through the National Union Catalog and the G. K. Hall Cata­ log of the Latin American Collection. In 1975, the General Libraries also began entering its Latin American cataloging records into the Ohio College Library Center ( O C L C ) data base. As a member of the AMIGOS Biblio­ graphic Council, the General Libraries of the University of Texas at Austin is committed to providing its Latin Amer­ ican cataloging through the OCLC sys­ tem on a continuing basis. Current Latin American receipts will be cataloged on arrival and input into OCLC; two OCLC terminals will be devoted exclusively to searching and input of cataloging data for Latin American materials. Six full­ time professionals and assorted support staff will be assigned to work with these materials. Monographs, serials, and non­ book materials will all be cataloged for input into the OCLC data base.