College and Research Libraries BOBCARMACKandJOHNN. OLSGAARD Collective Bargaining among Academic Librarians: A Survey of ACRL Members This study presents the results of a 1981 survey of ACRL personal members in the United States. Through a stratified random-sample model, nationwide and regional levels of collective bargaining activity among academic librari- ans were determined. As part of the survey, the attitudes of those working under a collective bargaining agreement were compiled. It was found that personal goals benefited the most, while organizational goals benefited the least from collective bargaining. In addition, various factors were analyzed to determine their impact on attitudinal responses. The general result was that the collective bargaining responses demonstrated a remarkable ·degree of homogeneity. IN RECENT YEARS collective bargaining has been an issue of much concern among aca- demic librarians. Although the literature is generous in the areas of local or regional stud- ies of collective bargaining1 and in the philo- sophical underpinnings of library union ac- tivities, 2 there has been no statistically viable nationwide study of collective bargaining for college and university librarians. The purpose of this article is to determine: (1) to what extent collective bargaining is oc- curring among academic librarians; (2) the attitude of those librarians involved in collec- tive bargaining toward unionism at their in- stitutions; and (3) the effect of different vari- ables on the respondents. During the months of February and March 1981, a stratified random sample of personal members in the United States, of the Associa- tion of College and Research Libraries (ACRL), was conducted. A survey was mailed to 700 of the members, to which 60.4 percent (423) responded. Stratified by re- gions of the United States, this return size not only validated the survey but could be inter- Bob Carmack is dean of library services, l.D . Weeks Library, University of South Dakota at Ver- million; and fohn N. Olsgaard, former documents librarians and archivist, I. D. Weeks Library , is a doctoral student, Graduate School of Library and Information Science, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. 140 I pretive of academic librarians' interest in the topic. The regional breakdown was con- structed using models from previous re- search. Regions are: Northeast: Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont; Southeast: Alabama, Flor- ida, Georgia, Kentucky, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Virginia, West Virginia; Midwest: Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Ne- braska, North Dakota, Ohio, South Dakota, Wisconsin; Southwest: Arizona, Arkansas, Louisiana, Mississippi, New Mexico, Okla- homa, Texas; West: Alaska, California, Col- orado, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, Washington, Wyoming. In order to ensure a valid statistical analy- sis of that portion of the ACRL membership which is comprised of college or university librarians, a proportional allocation model was utilized to determine. the sample size. The formula used for this purpose is shown in appendix A. The survey instrument itself is reproduced in appendix B. 3 The degree of collective bargaining occur- ring among academic librarians is shown in table 1. The data indicate that approximately one-fourth of all college and university li- brarians are involved in collective bargaining activities. Somewhat surprising is the large Collective Bargaining among Academic Librarians I 141 TABLE 1 ExTE NT OF CoLLECTIVE BARGAINING BY REGION Number of Num ber of Collec tive Academic Bargaining Libra ri ans Responses Region N = N = % Northeast 98 46 46.94 Southeast 45 Midwest 82 18 21.95 Southwest 24 West 49 8 16.33 Total 298 72 24.16 chi-square = 51.5905 H0 : I P I ;;1; I Po .05 \ = 9.488 D .F. = 4 Ho= 1 P 1 ;;1; 1 Po.Dll = 13.277 difference in the regional levels of collective bargaining. These levels ranged from almost half of the academic librarians in the North- east participating in collective bargaining ac- tivities (46.94 percent), to values in the Southeast and Southwest so minimal that sig- nificant description is precluded. The chi- square test demonstrates that the results are statistically significant at both the .05 and .01 levels, and were not due to chance distribu- tion . The data also revealed that of those under some form of collective bargaining, 87.5 per- cent were under the same contract, as were other faculty members on their campus. Con- versely, 12.5 percent were represented by their own individual union. The responses to the third part of the ques- tionnaire, "Section III: Attitudes toward Collective Bargaining," are given in table 2. It is almost axiomatic that individuals join unions to further personal rather than orga- nizational needs, and the results of our survey tend to bear this out. It is not surprising that the questions that received the highest levels in the category "Change for the Better" were, in descending order: Question 21: Due process (right to appeal alleged unfair practices) Question 16: Salaries Question 18: Fringe benefits Conversely, the questions that received the highest percentage in the category "Change for the Worse" (even though the percentages were not phenomenal) were: Questio~ 1: Relationship with library ad- ministration Question 2: Relationship with campus ad- ministration Question 6: Quality of library services These results were somewhat predicted in the literature prior to this survey. Dennis Chamot pointed out that: "Employees, while interested in the health and welfare of the organization, are more immediately con- cerned with income, working conditions, ca- reer development, and job security."4 Fur- ther, it should be noted that the questions with the highest percentage of "Change for the Worse" highlight the fact that collective bargaining tends to bring out or emphasize the adversary relationship between library administrators and library union members; indeed, collective bargaining may become a source of conflict in and of itself. s Generally, the attitude of respondents to the questions in this survey could be stated this way: collective bargaining had either no impact or had bettered the conditions of aca- ' demic librarians on the campuses where it occurred. Naturally, there was a good deal of difference among individual respondents on the effect of union activity at their particular institution. This variance was reflected in some of the comments requested and received at the end of the survey. Comments varied from one librarian from the Northeast who wrote, "I feel definitely that the presence of a collective bargaining agent with an active concern for librarians is beneficial," to a li- brarian from the Midwest who said, "Collec- tive bargaining probably is the worst thing that ever happened to this university." Of course, there were also those who felt, like one, that "changes have been all but imper- ceptible." The structure of the survey allowed a breakdown of the responses to collective bar- gaining as measured against several factors. This analysis was carried out on the following variables: sex, the type of academic library, the amount of supervisory duties , and the amount of professional experience that ap- plied to the individual respondent. Gener- ally , in the case of all variables tested, the respondents were remarkably homogeneous. It should be noted that the cases delineated below represent the exceptional rather than the commonplace occurrence. These particu- lar cases all show a statistically significant level of difference as measured by a chi- square test at the .05level. As measured by the sex of the respondent, responses to three of the questions showed a 142 I College & Research Libraries· March 1982 TABLE2 OvERALL RESPONSES TO CoLLECTIVE BARGAINING IN PERCENT (N = 72) C hange Ch ange No No fo r th e fo r th e Question Better Wo rse Change Response 1 20.83 13.89 54 .17 11.11 2 31.94 13.89 48.61 5.56 3 44.44 1.39 47 .22 6.94 4 8.33 1.39 86.11 4.17 5 4.17 2.78 88.89 4.17 6 15.28 11.11 69.44 4.17 7 12 .50 8 11.11 9 20.83 10 11.11 11 22.22 12 16.67 13 34 .72 14 31.94 15 23.61 16 62.50 17 40.28 18 54.17 19 44.44 20 30.56 21 70.83 22 26.39 23 20.83 24 37.50 significant degree of variation. They were: Q8: Budget allocations Q9: Personnel allocations Q18: Fringe benefits Ho: I P I ~ I Po.05 I = 5.991 chi-square = 11.018 chi-square = 6.516 chi-square = 9.429 D.F. = 2 In the cases of both budget and personnel al- locations, more male respondents tended to feel that there had been change for the better, while inversely, more female respondents be- lieved things had changed for the worse. In the instance of fringe benefits, more females than males tended to believe collective bar- gaining had caused a change for the better. Measuring the impact of collective bar- gaining on professional autonomy by both types of academic libraries and by years of experience yielded interesting data. The only question that resulted in any significant vari- ation between expected values for university librarians and those for college librarians was Ql5: Professional automony (chi-square = 6.819, .05 = 5.991). University librarians tended to think that there had been a much larger degree of change for the worse than college librarians. The analysis of experience sought to deter- mine if there was a difference between the 6.94 76.39 4.17 8.33 73.61 6.94 5.56 65.28 8.33 5.56 76.39 6.94 6.94 63.89 6.94 8.33 68.06 6.94 6.94 52.78 5.56 6.94 55.56 5.56 6.94 62.50 6.94 4.17 27.78 5.56 2.78 48.61 8.33 1.39 38.89 5.56 50.00 5.56 9.72 55.56 4 .17 1.39 23.61 4.17 1.39 68.06 4.17 75.00 4.17 55.56 6 .94 responses of those librarians with one to fif- teen years of professional experience and those with sixteen or more years of experi- ence. Again, the only question that d~mon­ strated a significant difference was Q15 (chi- square = 6.999, .05 = 5.991). More of the younger group of librarians tended to believe there had been a change for the better than did the older group. The last variable tested was to determine if there was a significant difference between those librarians who did not supervise other professional librarians and those who super- vised one or more professional librarians (groups roughly equivalent in size). None of the questions showed a significant variation between these two groups. On the basis of this national survey of ACRL members, various quantitative con- clusions can be drawn. The first of these de- terminations would be that collective bar- gaining affects about 25 percent of all college and university librarians in the United States, and that the level of unionization fluctuates greatly depending on the region of the coun- try. The second conclusion was that the ma- jority of those working under collective bar- gaining contracts were either neutral or positively inclined toward the effects of un- Collective Bargaining among Academic Librarians I 143 ionization. It was also shown that the catego- ries that improved the most, according to the respondents, were those of individual benefit to the members (e.g., salaries), whereas the areas that had shown the highest change for the worse were generally of an organiza- tional nature (e.g., library services). The fi- nal determination that can be made of this study is that, for the most part, factors such as sex, type of library, supervisory duties, or years of professional experience did not make a significant difference in the responses. No one group benefited more than another from collective bargaining; specific exceptions to this generalization were delineated. It must be stated that many of the respon- dents to the survey commented that although they they were not presently under any form of collective bargaining, their campuses were in some stage of beginning faculty union- ization. Hence, it would behoove the profes- sion to repeat this or a similar study periodi- cally in order to gauge the growth or decline of collective bargaining within the profes- sion. It was not the purpose of this study to for- mulate or even attempt to explain the causal rationale of the various data configurations. Whether unionization is good, bad, or indif- ferent for the profession or its individual members remains a question for others to ponder. This study is merely a step along the path to that collective decision. REFERENCES 1. For examples see Lothar Spong, "Collective Bargaining and University Librarians: Wayne State University ," College & Research Libraries 36:106-14 (March 1975); Mary Anne Burns and Jeanette Carter, "Collective Bargaining Fac- ulty Status for Librarians: West Chester State College," College & Research Libraries 36:115-20 (March 1975), or Theodore L. Guy- ton, Unionization: The Viewpoint of Librari- ans (Chicago: American Library Assn., 1975). 2. For examples see Gail Ann Schlachter, "Profes- sionalism v. Unionism," Library Trends 25:451-73 (Oct. 1976); or Anne Commerton, "Union or Professional Organization? A Librar- ians's Dilemma," College & Research Libraries 36:129-35 (March 1975). 3. Many of the attitudinal questions on the survey instrument were used with permission from Jean R. Kennelly, "The Current Status of Aca- demic Librarians' Involvement in Collective Bargaining: A Survey," in Millicent D. Abell, ed ., Collective Bargaining in Higher Education (Chicago: American Library Assn., 1976), p.89-90. 4. Dennis Chamot, "The Effect of Collective Bar- gaining on the Employee-Management Rela- tionship," Library Trends 25:491 (Oct. 1976). 5. See Marilyn A. Oberg, Mary Blackburn, and Joan Dible, "Unionization: Costs and Benefits to the Individual and the Library," Library Trends 25:443 (Oct. 1976). APPENDIX A n= 5 N 2 D + ~ N,p,q, i=l B2 whereD = - 4 - n = overall sample size N = population size N; = strata size in the ith region p 1 = strata proportion that are college or university librarians in the ith region q, = 1 - p, w, = weight factor; percentage of the population given by the ith region B = bound on the error of estimation; in this case .05 144 I College & Research Libraries • March 1982 Since, at the time of the sample, the actual proportion of ACRL members that were college or university librarians was not known, the most conservative estimate was used (i.e., P. and q. = .5) to calculate the required number of responses. ACRL members were assigned individual an'd regional sequential identifi- cation numbers, and were selected on the basis of random-number generation. DATA CoNFIGURATION Number Population Number Required Actual Region Size Mailed Returns Returns w· NE 2,540 272 133 146 .3497 SE 970 80 51 53 .1335 MI 2,061 199 108 122 .2837 sw 579 51 31 32 .0797 WE 1,114 98 59 70 .1534 Total 7,264 700 382 423 1.0000 APPENDIX B: SuRVEY SECTION 1: BACKGROUND 1. Please check the appropriate box. Are you a: _Two year college librarian _Special librarian _Four year college librarian _Library school student _University librarian _Library school faculty __j>ublic librarian _Retired librarian _Other (please specify) __________________________ _ 2. Are you: __ Female __ Male If you are not a college or university librarian you need not go further; please return this survey in the enclosed envelope. 3. Please check all appropriate box(es) of educational degrees obtained: __B.A. or B.S. _Specialist degree (library science) _Masters (library science) _Specialist degree (nonlibrary science) _Masters (nonlibrary science) __]>h.D. (library science) _Ed.D. __]>h.D. (nonlibrary science) _J.D. _Other (please specify) __________________________ _ 4. How many years have you been a professional librarian? ____ _ 5. How many professional positions have you held? ____ _ 6. How many years have you been at your present location? ____ _ 7. Do you have"faculty rank" (defined as having the privileges of faculty, but without the the ability for tenure) at your present location? ___ yes ___ no 8. Do you have "faculty status" (defined as having the privileges of faculty, including tenure) at your present location? ___ yes ___ no 9. Do you supervise other professional librarians at your present location? ___ yes ___ no If yes, How many professional librarians do you supervise? _______________ _ SECTION II: COLLECTIVE BARGAINING 1. Is it true that faculty collective bargaining is a fact on your campus? ___ yes ___ no 2. Are librarians included in the faculty bargaining unit(s)? ___ yes ___ no 3. If librarians are not included in the faculty bargaining unit(s), are librarians represented by other bargaining units? ___ yes ___ no 4. If librarians are represented for collective bargaining purposes, are library administrators repre- sented by the same bargaining units? ___ yes ___ no SECTION III: ATTITUDES TOWARD COLLECTIVE BARGAINING With regard to the effects of collective bargaining on the status of academic librarians on your campus, please mark the below categories with the following numerals: Change for the better = 1 Change for the worse = 2 Nochange = 3 Collective Bargaining among Academic Librarians I 145 1. Relationship with library administration __ _ 2. Relationship with campus administration __ _ 3. Relationship with the faculty __ _ 4. Relationship with the students __ _ 5. Relationship with the public __ _ 6. Quality of library services __ _ 7. Quality of library collections __ _ 8. Budget allocations __ _ 9. Personnel allocations __ _ 10. Selection of clericals and paraprofessionals __ _ 11. Selection of librarians __ _ 12. Selection of library administrators __ _ 13. Participation in policy determination __ _ 14. Participation in decision making in general __ _ 15. Professional autonomy __ _ 16. Salaries __ _ 17. Tenure __ _ 18. Fringe benefits __ _ 19. Leaves and vacations __ _ 20. Promotion __ _ 21. Due process (right to appeal alleged unfaix: practices) __ _ 22. Workschedules __ _ 23. Length of workday· __ 24. Number of days in work year __ _ Please feel free to include any comments you may have to any of the above categories in the following space and* the item indicated. Comments: Thank you for filling out this survey. Please return in the enclosed self-addressed, stamped envelope. From JAI PRESS INC. Volume 17 of Foundations in Library and Information Sciences A Series of Monographs, Texts, and Treatises Series Editor Robert D. Stueart (;rndtwte School of l.ihrarv and Information Science Sirnn)()ns Cullcgc - Boston "Librarians and library school faculty members are becoming accustomed to finding the volumes of this series among the most useful studies of their subjects .·· -JOURNAL OF ACADEMIC LIBRARIANSHIP Available June 1982 Options For The 80s: Proceedings of the Second National Conference of the Association of College and Research Libraries Edited by Michael D. Kathman, College of St . Benedict and St . John's University and Virgil F. Massman, James J . Hill. Reference Library ISBN 0 -89232-276 -4 Cloth 2Volumes Approx . $75 .00 Ca. 800pp . The Second National Conference of the Association for College and Research Libraries has taken as its focus an assessment of the options that lie before us in the next decade . This volume will contain 56 papers present on a variety of topics . They will include : Information Services and Bibliographic instruction : Special Collections and Facilities . Performance Evaluation and Governance : Networking . Cooperation and Technology : Standard and Collection Develop- ment: Administration and Funding :· The Role of the Library and the Librarian in Academic Institutions : and Planning and Bibliographic Control. In addition. invited papers on major issues as well as the text of tl'ie five theme addresses will be presented in an attempt to identify the major oportunities and challenges that confront higher education and academic and research libraries during the 1980s . Please write us for a complete catalog . University libraries depend upon their faculty for recommendations before purchasing. Please encourage your library to subscribe to this series. INSTITUTIONAL STANDING ORDERS u·i/1 be granted a JO 'f, disc o unt and be filled automattca/1~· upon publication . Please mdtcate inittal volume o f standing order INDIVIDUAL ORDERS must be prepaid b~· personal check o r credit card Please include $2 00 per volu me for postage and handling on all domest ic orders . $3 00 for foreign @JAI PRESS INC., 36 Sherwood Place, P.O. Box 1678 Greenwich, Connecticut 06836 Telephone: 203-661-7602 ·cable Address: JAIPUBL Get the upper hand on Serials M.anagem.ent The right tools are needed to man- age an outstand ing serials collec- tion . Hard work and dedication alone are not enough to assure professional serials management. Baker & Taylor's Continuation Ser- vice provides the collection de- velopment tools and management reports you need to do the job. o Collection Development Tools Starter List. Includes 1,300 of the most frequently demanded serials ; each entry contains full selection and ordering data as extracted from the Continuation Service database. Subject Bibliography. Indicates title availability by discipline in order to facilitate the establish- ment , expansion , and enrich- ment of a serials collection . Expanded Starter List (Micro- fiche) . Provides access to the bibliographic records of over 7,000 titles of prime interest to ac- ademic and research libraries. 0 Management Reports Customer Profile . Confirms titles on standing order with Baker & Taylor; supplied upon opening an account and at any time upon request. Shipment History. Supplies data on issues of standing orders which have been shipped to the user; information is cumulated weekly and reports are available quarterly, semiannually, or annually upon request. Status Report. Provides informa- tion on issues of titles cur- rently on order and is available quarterly, semiannually, or annually upon request . Individual Title Report. Alerts Continuation Service users to such information as title changes , out-of-print data, dis- continued titles , and delays in publication . Alternate Year Capability. Allows purchase flexibility when bud - gets are a factor. With an experienced staff of serials librarians always ava ilable to answer questions, Baker & Taylor ensures a comprehensive selec- tion and prompt fulfillment of stand- ing orders . For further information , please write or call the Sales Department of the Baker & Taylor distribution center nearest you . • Baker &.. Taylor Book Professionals Since 1828 r----------, I. Baker &. Taylor I I The Book Professionals Since 1828 I want more Information about Baker & Taylor's CONTINUATION SERVICE. 0 Send me your free brochure. 0 Have a representative contact me. Name Library Street Address City/State/Zip Telephone# (area c od e) CRL -382 ._ _________ ... Eastern Division 50 Kirby Avenue Midwestern Division Glad iola Avenue Momence, Illinois 60954 {815) 472-2444 Southern Division Mt. Olive Road Western Division 380 Ed ison Way Reno , Nevada 89564 (702) 786-6700 Somerville, New Jersey 08876 {201) 722-8000 Commerce , Georg ia 30599 (404 ) 335-5000 tt ••• a splendid achievement!' LIBRARY JOURNAL. Index of English Literary Manuscripts Volume I, 1450-1625, Parts 1 and 2 Compiled by Peter Beal 2 vols. 1,258 pp. total. 1980. illus. (0-7201-0807-1). $320. Volume IV, 1800-1900, Part 1, A-G Compiled by Barbara Rosenbaum and Pamela White 900 pp. Jan. 1982. illus. (0-7201-1587-6). about $160. Index ofEnglishLiterary Manuscripts is a major reference work that lists, describes and locates literary texts from 1450-1900. It is an invaluable source for locating the works of 270 major British and Irish authors, including some previously unrecorded discoveries. Planned for five volumes, the Index brings together references to manuscripts, corrected proofs and contemporary transcripts held in hundreds of public and private collections the world over. It also contains reproductions of selected works. An excerpt from Lewis Carroll's "Gardener's Song," 1887. Each volume has an alphabetical listing of authors followed by six categories for man- uscript entries. Both listings provide a basis for research to professors, biographers, historians and anyone who needs clear, concise information on English Literature. Volume I, Parts 1 and 2, details approximately 12,000 manuscript.s from the works of 72 Renaissance writers including previously unknown works by Francis Bacon and Edmund Spenser. Volume IV, Part 1, includes the extant works of23 nineteenth-century authors and records unpublished poems by Elizabeth Barrett Browning, Samuel Taylor Coleridge and others. For more information on these and other Mansell publications, please write to: Mansell Publishing Ltd. 950 University Avenue Bronx, New York 10452