Whether a group of employees wants to form a union to
represent them in collective bargaining is a decision that those employees
should be entitled to make. Unfortunately, contingent faculty (non-tenure-track
instructors, lecturers, and teaching specialists) at the University of
Minnesota will likely not get to make that decision themselves. Rather, the Minnesota
State Legislature effectively prevented them from being able to make this
decision when it enacted an unnecessary provision in state law over 35 years
ago. In the wake of a state appeals court ruling earlier this month upholding
this strange legislative provision, it’s time for the legislature to correct its
earlier mistake and repeal this provision.
Perhaps some background is needed. When some employees want
to form a union, an appropriate bargaining unit needs to be defined in order to
specify exactly what positions would be represented by a union if an organizing
drive is successful. Standard practice is for the employees or their desired
representative (a specific labor union) to initially propose this definition.
If an employer objects and prefers a broader or narrower definition, then a neutral, expert governmental agency investigates and determines the exact definition of
the appropriate bargaining unit based on input and evidence. This is exactly what happens in the U.S.
private sector (with the National Labor Relations Board empowered by federal law to handle unit
determination questions based on its judgement of which employees share a “community
of interest”), and, as far as I can tell, in almost all public sector
jurisdictions in the United States (for example, see South Dakota's Public Employment Labor Relations Act section 3-18-4 or Iowa's Public Employment Relations Act section 20.13).
When the Minnesota Public Employment Labor Relations Act (PELRA) was
first enacted in 1971, this standard practice was adopted by empowering the Bureau of Mediation Services (BMS) to determine appropriate bargaining units when a
public sector employer objects to the workers’ proposed definition. For state
agencies, the law contained a proviso that an appropriate bargaining unit should
consist of “all the employees under the same appointing Authority” unless “professional, geographical or other
considerations affecting employment relations clearly require” some other appropriate
unit (section 179.74). As is common elsewhere, there were no special provisions
for the University of Minnesota, school districts, or others covered by PELRA.
In 1980, however, the Minnesota State Legislature deviated
from common practice by changing PELRA to specify 16 (now 17) state bargaining
units and 12 (now 13) University of Minnesota bargaining units (see Minnesota Session Laws 1980 c 617 s 40) (in later years, court units were also specified). This has long
puzzled me, especially because it runs contrary to standard practice, and it is
likely rooted in a desire to impose operational stability or convenience by
limiting the number of bargaining units that a state agency or the University
of Minnesota has to deal with. But the effect is to impose an outdated occupational
structure on contemporary realities and to deny employees their rights to form
unions and engage in collective bargaining. This is clearly not the way to
balance efficiency, equity, and voice—a principle that I have long advocated as
the key objective of work-related public policy (also see this, and this).
Getting back to the plight of contingent faculty at the University
of Minnesota, the way the process should have worked was for BMS to have had
the discretion to use its expert judgement decide whether it was best to include contingent faculty with tenure-track
faculty, or to define two separate units, based on input, hearings, and the facts of this particular situation at this particular time. But with the unit definitions
pre-specified by state law, contingent faculty are not allowed to have their
own unit, and the state appeals court ruled that they are not part of the
tenure-track unit. So this ruling means that contingent faculty are included in
a catch-all unit of all professional and administrative employees at the
University of Minnesota. The diversity of this unit is hard to grasp. By one
count, there are over 300 job titles in it, presumably many more than in 1980.
By my reckoning, this will kill the contingent faculty union drive because in order to unionize they'll need to get a
majority of accountants, cartographers, athletic trainers, and numerous others to
all vote for a single union, which is close to impossible. It strains credulity to think that this diversity (a)
represents a community of interest for these employee groups and (b) serves
anyone’s interests except the administration of the University of Minnesota because
it makes unionization almost impossible (which might explain why the
administration spent 18 months trying to get this ruling).
The processes of labor relations work best when
they are allowed to be dynamic and to adapt to changing situations by those
directly involved. Collective bargaining has proven to be adaptable to many
industries and occupations, and can handle economic, technological, and other
changes when labor and management negotiators have the freedom to determine the
scope and tenor of their negotiations. Similarly, determining appropriate
bargaining units should be a flexible process in which a neutral, expert agency has the
ability to adjust to changing trends based on input from the relevant parties, hearings, and evidence about the particular realities of each case. The world of work has changed
significantly since 1980, and it’s silly to think that even a well-intentioned
legislative intervention in 1980 is still the best approach today (exhibit A: the
tremendous rise of contingent faculty at the University of Minnesota).
But there is an easy solution: simply repeal
sections 179A.10 Subd. 2 (defining state units), 179A.101 Subd. 1 (defining court units), and 179A.11 Subd. 1 (defining University
of Minnesota units). No language is needed to replace these unnecessary passages.
In their absence, the authority to determine appropriate bargaining units on a case-by-case basis will
revert back to BMS under sections 179A.04 Subd. 2 and 179A.09, and common sense practice found
throughout the rest of the state and most of the country will be restored. And
contingent faculty at the University of Minnesota, and perhaps other employee
groups, too, will be able to act like the autonomous, dignified human beings
that they are and make a decision whether to unionize or not.
I agree with you, Professor Budd.
ReplyDelete