FINAL REPORT

The Faculty Senate Ad Hoc Committee to Investigate the Feasibility of Collective Bargaining for the LSU Faculty

Fred Aghazadeh
Carol Barry
William Pinar
Erwin Poliakoff
Patrick McGee, Chair

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTION
RESEARCH
LEGAL ISSUES
LSU COMPENSATION IN THE SOUTHERN REGIONAL CONTEXT
Fringe Benefits
Salary Comparisons
Cost of Living
LSU COMPENSATION IN THE NATIONAL CONTEXT
Fringe Benefits
Salary Comparisons
Cost of Living
MODELS: UNIONIZED VS. NONUNIONIZED RESEARCH UNIVERSITIES
University of Rhode Island and University of Vermont
Wayne State University and Michigan State University
REVIEW OF CONTRACTS
COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGENTS
THE VIEW OF THE LSU ADMINISTRATION
ALTERNATIVES TO COLLECTIVE BARGAINING
CONCLUSIONS
RECOMMENDATIONS
APPENDIX I
Taxes and Cost of Living Compared Between University Cities
APPENDIX II
Table I—Average Compensation 1970-2001
Table II—Average Salary 1970-2001
Table III—Average Salary Increases 1970-2001

INTRODUCTION

The Faculty Senate Ad Hoc Committee to Investigate the Feasibility of Collective Bargaining for the LSU Faculty was constituted on April 10, 2001. The primary mission of this committee has been, first, to "survey comparable institutions at which the faculty members have organized into collective-bargaining units to determine the impact of those units on the quality of faculty compensation, faculty rights, and academic life" and, second, to "study the national organizations that support collective bargaining, such as the American Association of University Professors and the American Federation of Teachers, to determine the nature and efficacy of that support" (SR 01-08). Initially, the committee decided to limit our review to institutions with a Research I ranking according to the Carnegie Classification. However, since the Carnegie Classification is undergoing a review at the present time and discontinued the use of the categories Research I and II in its 2000 edition, we followed the more recent edition and considered universities within the somewhat broader category of "Research Universities—Extensive." This category is defined in the most recent Carnegie Classification as "comprising institutions that award a substantial number of doctorates across a wide range of fields", (Carnegie Classification, 2000 Edition, at www.carnegiefoundation.org/Classification/index.htm). The Carnegie Foundation itself has warned against regarding these classifications as qualitative rankings rather than descriptions of institutional practice.

As a preliminary step, the committee obtained a copy of the report of the Ad Hoc Committee to Study the Desirability of Collective Bargaining that was produced at the University of Rhode Island in early 1971 just before that institution underwent the process of unionization. This report conveyed to us an idea about the information we needed to gather, but it also suggested the need for some elementary research on the topic of collective bargaining in higher education since Rhode Island was one of the first research universities to undergo unionization and much has happened since 1971. This report also supported the committee's view that our mission was not to produce a comprehensive survey of all unionized research institutions, a task beyond the resources of the committee, but to review a group of significant examples to determine the feasibility of collective bargaining for LSU at the present time.

RESEARCH

In our survey of the literature on collective bargaining in higher education, three scholarly works seemed particularly relevant and useful: Gary Rhoades, Managed Professionals: Unionized Faculty and Restructuring Academic Labor (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1998); Gordon B. Arnold, The Politics of Faculty Unionization: The Experience of Three New England Universities (Westport, Connecticut: Bergin & Garvey, 2000); and Philo A. Hutcheson, A Professional Professoriate: Unionization, Bureaucratization, and the AAUP (Nashville: Vanderbilt University Press, 2000). The following picture emerges from this literature and other data, mostly online:

  • At public institutions in the mid-90s, 63% of full-time faculty and 60% of all higher education institutions had collective bargaining contracts; and if you factor out research universities, the number of unionized faculty was 89%. However, by implication, most research universities were (and are) not unionized (Rhoades 9-10). For higher education faculty taken as a whole, there is no question that collective bargaining has led to higher salaries (see Table 2.6 in Rhoades 77-78). However, this generalization does not apply to research universities since, according to AAUP Salary Survey for 2000-01, the private elite universities pay the highest salaries, followed by the elite public universities, only a few of which are unionized. At best, unionized public universities are competitive with the elite public universities. In the southern region, the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and the University of Virginia can be considered elite public universities and have among the highest salaries in that category nationwide. The Universities of Florida and Georgia as well as Virginia Commonwealth University, among the extensive research institutions, have salaries that are competitive with the elite public universities. In the South, only Florida is unionized.
  • The extensive research institutions that currently have faculty collective bargaining units listed on the websites of either the AAUP, the AFT, or the NEA are University of Connecticut, University of Delaware, Florida International University, Florida State University, University of Florida, University of South Florida, University of Hawaii at Manoa, Southern Illinois University at Carbondale, University of Maine at Orono, University of Massachusetts, Wayne State University, Western Michigan University, University of New Hampshire, Rutgers University at New Brunswick, City University of New York, State Universities of New York (Albany, Binghamton, Buffalo, Stony Brook), University of Cincinnati, Kent State University, University of Toledo, University of Rhode Island, and University of Vermont.
  • For research universities, the most unionized region of the country is the Northeast. As Arnold's study demonstrates, during the 70s the primary factor that motivated union movements on the campuses of the Universities of Rhode Island, Massachusetts, and Connecticut were salaries. On the whole, public universities in that region have been historically marginalized by the prestigious private institutions. At the time of their union movement in 1970-71, the faculty at the University of Rhode Island had salaries that were, in the argument of their own president, significantly below those at two comparable institutions, Massachusetts and Connecticut, and closer to the salaries at institutions like the University of Alabama at Birmingham, the University of West Florida, and Western Connecticut State College (Arnold 60). However, by the year 2001, thirty years after unionization, faculty salaries at Rhode Island were still significantly below the salaries at Connecticut and Massachusetts. In effect, unionization at Rhode Island produced a ripple effect that led to unionization at the other New England public universities, including Connecticut and Massachusetts. While salaries in the region went up overall, the position of Rhode Island in relation to the other institutions remained more or less the same.
  • Average total compensation at LSU in academic year 2000-01 was significantly below that of the University of Rhode Island while the latter was comparable to southern universities, except for the University of Virginia, at one end of the spectrum, and the Universities of Alabama, Arkansas, Mississippi, and West Virginia, at the other. When the University of Vermont faculty voted to unionize in 2001, their average total compensation (which includes benefits) was about six thousand above that of LSU faculty, which approximates the difference in cost of living between Baton Rouge and Burlington. (Here and throughout this report, all references to faculty salaries are based on the AAUP Salary Survey, published annually in Academe. All references to cost of living refer to Appendix I of this report.)
  • The collective bargaining units that have negotiated the highest salaries and total compensation at extensive research universities are usually affiliated with the AAUP, though many are affiliated with an AAUP/AFT combination. As Hutcheson's study shows, the history of the AAUP since the 60s suggests that collective bargaining may be the only effective way to protect the faculty rights that have been the traditional focus of that organization. This is the primary reason why the AAUP finally began to organize collective bargaining units in a serious way in the 70s. In a 1970 survey of 970 institutions, the AAUP analyzed five levels of faculty participation in university governance: determination, joint action, consultation, discussion, and none. They found that faculty enjoyed determination only in the area of the academic performance of students and played no significant role in decisions about individual faculty salaries and budgetary planning. Their conclusion was that faculties participate at the level of consultation and usually in no other way (Hutcheson 129). According to Hutcheson, from 1976 to the early 1990s, this situation has not significantly changed despite the enormous growth in the number of college professors since the 60s (180-81).

These facts and other aspects of the research lead the committee to the following conclusions. First, collective bargaining is not a panacea that will automatically lift LSU above the level of other universities, in the southern region or elsewhere, in terms of faculty compensation. If LSU were to form a union and successfully negotiate higher salaries for its faculty, other public research universities in the region and their legislatures would inevitably respond and the faculties under their authority would benefit from the activism of the LSU faculty, often in an effort to avoid the spread of faculty unionization. In these contexts, collective bargaining is a political tool for asserting the interests and enforcing the rights of the faculty and is usually undertaken when other methods have failed. The research suggests that it does lead to an adversarial relationship between the governing board or administration and the faculty, though this relationship can be one of productive negotiation as well as one of demoralizing antagonism. In the last thirty years, the AAUP has emerged as the most prominent agent for collective bargaining at research universities (a minority of unionized institutions overall), though often in organizational conjunction with the AFT, primarily because it addresses the issues of shared governance and faculty rights more effectively than other organizations that are primarily focused on faculty compensation.

LEGAL ISSUES

The committee met with Professor William R. Corbett of the Paul M. Hebert Law Center at LSU to discuss the legality of collective bargaining at LSU. According to Professor Corbett, the LSU faculty would not be covered by the National Labor Relations Act, which excludes states from the definition of "employer," or by the Federal Civil Service Reform Act of 1978. The faculty does have the right to form a collective bargaining unit under Title 23, Section 822 (of the Little Norris-LaGuardia Act) and Section 981 (Right to Work Law) of the Revised Statutes of the State. In a 1990 case, Davis v. Henry, it was stated that "the Louisiana legislature … did not exclude the state, its agencies, and political subdivisions when it declared public policy in regard to the freedom of laborers to organize." According to the Opinion of the Attorney General on April 4, 1974 (No. 74-413), Louisiana teachers and public employees can engage in collective bargaining with their employers, "subject to the limitation that no agreement can violate any specific statutory or constitutional provision." Another Opinion of the Attorney General on October 30, 1992 (No. 92-413) says that "Louisiana law allows public employers the right to collectively bargain with their employee[s] in the form of labor organizations." In the opinion of Professor Corbett, Louisiana teachers have the right to strike under the Little Norris-LaGuardia Act (RS 23-841), and their strikes can be enjoined by the courts only if they threaten the health and safety of the public. However, Professor Corbett pointed out that there is no clear legal statement to the effect that the state or its agencies must recognize and negotiate with a public employee collective bargaining agent. The fact that public employers are free to engage in such bargaining, according to the Attorney General's opinion, suggests that they might be free not to engage in it.

In the opinion of the committee, the LSU faculty has the legal right to form a collective bargaining unit, though they have no right to force LSU faculty members to join such an organization even if a majority of faculty vote for unionization. The Right to Work Law prohibits a "closed shop."

LSU COMPENSATION IN THE SOUTHERN REGIONAL CONTEXT

Fringe Benefits

In general, LSU's fringe benefits are lower than those of most research universities in the South.

  • For example, in the academic year 2000-01, the percentage difference between average salary and average total compensation at LSU was 19.3%. The same percentage at other universities in the South was usually higher: University of Tennessee 25.2%, University of Arkansas 24%, Virginia Commonwealth University 23.7%, University of Alabama 23.5%, University of Georgia 23.5%, University of Florida 22.5%, University of Virginia 22.5%, University of Mississippi 22.3%, University of South Carolina at Columbia 22.1%, University of Kentucky 21.4%, West Virginia University 20.1%, and University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill 17.8%.

Salary Comparisons

In the southern region, LSU tends to rank at the bottom in terms of faculty salaries with an average salary in the academic year 2000-01 of $54,800. In some of his recent public presentations, LSU Chancellor Mark Emmert has noted that if you look at faculty salaries among SEC public universities, which are comparable to LSU in terms of academic reputation, our institution ranks at the bottom. The University of Florida ranks at the top of the SEC. In the southern region in general, the only unionized extensive research institutions are in the Florida system. With respect to compensation, the University of Florida surpasses most comparable southern institutions, keeps up with Georgia and Virginia Commonwealth, and is surpassed by Virginia and North Carolina at Chapel Hill. In the academic year 1969-70, the gap in average salaries between LSU and Florida was roughly 12%; in the mid-eighties and mid-nineties, it was about 14%; but by 2000-01, it had soared to 24.8%. In 1969-70, the difference between Florida and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, where salaries have been consistently higher, was 7.6%. In 1984-85, about ten years after the unionization of the Florida system, the salary gap between Florida and North Carolina was down to 4.2%. Then, in the nineties, the gap increased again in North Carolina's favor. Last year it was 16.5%. These figures suggest that unionization can improve faculty salaries for a period of time, though there is no guarantee that other factors won't intervene to transform the situation. In terms of salaries, last year the University of Florida held the same rank among flagship universities in the South as it did in 1970 (a position it more or less shares with the University of Georgia). LSU in 2001 was at the bottom (a position it shares with the University of Mississippi).

There is another lesson to be taken from these figures. Institutions like the Universities of Georgia and North Carolina, not to mention Virginia, obviously operate in political environments that seek to make them economically competitive with peer institutions. The campuses in Florida, which are unionized as a system, may not receive the same degree of support from their state. For example, Florida State University, an extensive research institution, has gone backwards somewhat in the last thirty years. In 1970 their average salary was equal to that at Florida's flagship university, but in 2001 there is a 9.4% difference. Of course, it could be that collective bargaining changed the political environment for higher education in Florida for the worse, though it seems unlikely that any faculty would vote for collective bargaining if the political atmosphere were unusually friendly. In spite of this political situation, salaries at the University of Florida improved significantly over the short term after unionization and have remained relatively competitive with peer institutions nationwide over the last thirty years. Collective bargaining may be one possible reason. It could be argued that the only way to improve compensation at LSU is through collective bargaining since the faculty cannot rely on the good will of the state to support the institution and the faculty fairly. No faculty would start a union if the political environment were committed to the economic well-being of the faculty.

Cost of Living

The committee looked into the differences in cost of living at southern universities. According to recent and relatively reliable numbers, the cost of living in Baton Rouge is either higher than or equivalent to the cost of living in Tuscaloosa, Alabama; Fayetteville, Arkansas; Athens, Georgia; Lexington, Kentucky; Gainesville, Florida; Columbia, South Carolina; Knoxville, Tennessee; and probably University, Mississippi (based on surrounding areas). The cost of living is a little higher in Chapel Hill, North Carolina, and significantly higher in Charlottesville, Virginia. The data puts to rest the belief that Baton Rouge is a bargain in terms of cost of living. Even if you factor in the low taxes, Baton Rouge is about average for the nation and a little above average for the South.

LSU COMPENSATION IN THE NATIONAL CONTEXT

Fringe Benefits

At extensive research universities outside of the South in 2000-01, the percentage difference between average salary and average total compensation was usually, though not always, greater than LSU's 19.3%.

  • The percentage difference between average salary and average total compensation at most non-unionized institutions with high average salaries was significantly better than LSU's: Michigan State University 31.4%, University of Minnesota at the Twin Cities 30.1%, University of Utah 29.5%, Purdue University 27.9%, University of Vermont 27.1% (not unionized at the time), Indiana University at Bloomington 25%, University of Wisconsin at Madison 24.7%, University of Iowa 24.1%, University of Nebraska at Lincoln 22.9%, University of Kansas 22.8%, University of Washington 22.6%, University of Colorado at Boulder 22.5%, Ohio State University 22.2%, and Pennsylvania State University 21.6%.
  • The percentage difference between average salary and average total compensation at a few of the better paying non-unionized institutions was equivalent to or lower than LSU's: University of Maryland at College Park 20.7%, University of Arizona 20.3%, University of Texas at Austin 19.8%, University of Missouri 18.6%, University of Illinois at Urbana 18.3%, and University of Nevada at Reno 16.2%.
  • The percentage difference between average salary and average total compensation was higher at some non-unionized institutions with average salaries approaching LSU's: University of Oregon 30.2%, University of Oklahoma 28.6%, and University of Wyoming 24.1%.
  • Overall, universities with faculty unions had the highest percentage difference between average salary and average total compensation: University of New Hampshire 29.9%, University of Delaware 29.2%, University of Cincinnati 29%, University of Rhode Island 28.7%, SUNY at Stony Brook 26.7%, University of Maine at Orono 26.3%, Wayne State University 24%, University of Massachusetts 23.7%, and Rutgers University at New Brunswick 23.6%. The exception was University of Hawaii at Manoa (16.3%).
  • If one goes by the most recent AAUP figures on doctoral-level public institutions (their Category I), then the percentage difference between average salary and average total compensation nation-wide would be 23.7%.

Salary Comparisons

If one is looking throughout the nation at flagship universities that are extensive research institutions, LSU ranks at the bottom in terms of salaries (along with the University of Wyoming, which has much better fringe benefits). Among those public universities that are members of the American Association of Universities (AAU), the only institution that approaches LSU in average salaries is the University of Oregon, where the difference in salaries is more or less equal to the difference in cost of living between Eugene, Oregon, and Baton Rouge, though, as indicated above, the University of Oregon has better fringe benefits. Excluding that university and the University of California campuses (where salaries respond to the extremely high cost of living), the salary gap between LSU and other extensive research institutions in this group ranges from 17.3% (University of Nebraska at Lincoln) to 49.6% (University of Virginia). After Virginia, the top average salaries are in this order: $79,700 (University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill), $78,900 (University of Wisconsin, Madison), $77,700 (University of Illinois at Urbana), and $77,500 (Rutgers University at New Brunswick and University of Michigan). The Rutgers system is unionized, and it should be mentioned that the Rutgers campus at Newark, which is an "intensive" research university according to the Carnegie Classification, has the highest salaries of any public institution in the AAU. However, the cost of living in New Brunswick is probably about 25% higher than in Baton Rouge, though that still leaves a difference of over 24%. The University of Florida falls into the lower third of the salary range among AAU schools, though there is only a 13.3% difference in average salary between Florida and Rutgers at New Brunswick.

Cost of Living

The cost of living in Baton Rouge is roughly equivalent to or higher than the cost of living at these AAU extensive research institutions that have higher average salaries: University of Illinois ($77,700), University of Buffalo, SUNY ($74,500), University of Iowa ($74,400), The Ohio State University ($73,900), University of Texas ($71,100), Michigan State University ($70,000), University of Arizona ($69,900), University of Florida ($68,400), Indiana University ($67,500), University of Pittsburgh ($67,100), The Pennsylvania State University ($66,100), University of Kansas ($65,000), University of Missouri ($64,500), and University of Nebraska at Lincoln ($64,300). In this group, the highest salaries are at the non-unionized University of Illinois, though the unionized SUNY campus at Buffalo comes in second. Furthermore, if one looks at this list, one can better appreciate the success of the University of Florida in sustaining salaries competitive with some of the best public universities in the country—universities that, like Florida, have all been surpassed in compensation by the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and the University of Virginia.

The committee concludes that, in terms of compensation, the situation of LSU in the nation is the same as it is in the South. Clearly, collective bargaining has made a difference in New York, New Jersey, and the New England states, but the Northeast has strong union traditions that may not bear realistic comparison with the situation in Louisiana. The position of the University of Florida in this larger context, however, does suggest that collective bargaining can make a difference in bringing a public university into the national mainstream in terms of compensation.

MODELS: UNIONIZED VS. NONUNIONIZED RESEARCH UNIVERSITIES

Finally, the committee did a detailed comparison of specific unionized and non-unionized institutions from the academic year 1969-70 to the academic year 2000-01. We did not choose the University of Florida as an example because we didn't think we would learn anything new from such a close comparison. The southern institutions to which Florida can be meaningfully compared and which might see themselves as its competitors are the University of Georgia, the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and the University of Virginia. Last year, however, Virginia and North Carolina were the top-paying public extensive research universities in the country, excluding the University of California system. The University of Virginia is really in a category by itself, and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill seems to be approaching that status. As for Georgia, despite fluctuations, its salaries have remained more or less equivalent to those at the University of Florida both before and after Florida's unionization. In any case, it seems unlikely that the union in Florida has had any significant influence on the situations in Georgia, North Carolina, and Virginia.

University of Rhode Island and University of Vermont

Historically, the University of Rhode Island is a smaller institution than LSU, though at the time of its unionization in the early 70s it occupied a position in the northeastern region similar to LSU's in one respect: in terms of faculty compensation, it ranked at the bottom of a group of institutions in the Northeast with which it considered itself to be comparable. Just as LSU shares its current status with the University of Mississippi, so the University of Rhode Island shared its status with the University of Vermont, where the faculty earned slightly lower average salaries (4.2% difference) and more significantly lower total compensation (8.4% difference) in 1969-70. At that time, the only unionized public research university in the region was Rutgers, and in the South today there is only the Florida system. Rhode Island has 14,362 students, including 3,329 graduate students, and 605 faculty. Vermont has 7,470 undergraduates and 1,053 graduate students with 919 full-time faculty and 183 part-time faculty.

The tables in Appendix II indicate the fluctuations in salaries, total compensation, and percentage increase over a thirty year period. Throughout the 70s, total compensation by rank at Rhode Island was usually 6 to 8% above that at Vermont. Salary differences by rank were even greater. In the annual report of 1980-81, the AAUP began to record average salaries and average total compensation for all ranks again for the first time in ten years. That report revealed an 11.9% gap in average total compensation and a 13.7% gap in average salaries that favored Rhode Island. In the early 80s, Vermont began to close the gap in terms of total compensation and even surpassed Rhode Island in 1983-84, but by the latter third of the decade the situation began to reverse itself again. Nonetheless, Vermont was typically paying higher salaries and overall compensation to associate and full professors than was Rhode Island. In 1989-90, the gap in average total compensation, still in favor of Rhode Island, was 9.8%, while the gap in average salaries was 11.6%. By 1993-94, Rhode Island was surpassing Vermont in faculty compensation and salaries at all ranks with an 18.6% gap in total average compensation. The next year the gap widened to 24.4%. The gap fluctuated a bit over the next few years, but in 1999-00 it was 22.8% and last year 22.2%. The history of percentage increases tells the same story in slightly different terms. Though the faculty at the University of Vermont occasionally received spectacular raises, in the long run their average increases were lower than those at Rhode Island.

When one looks at these numbers, it is not difficult to see why the faculty at the University of Vermont voted in a union last year. There is a strong argument in this history for the effectiveness of collective bargaining. As the tables in Appendix II show, LSU started out in 1969-70 on a par with the University of Vermont in average salaries and total compensation. Thirty years later there was a significant gap between LSU and Vermont, though not as great as the gap between Vermont and Rhode Island. LSU used to keep up with both institutions; now it has fallen behind.

However, there is also a warning in this data. The University of Rhode Island's faculty chose collective bargaining as an instrument to improve their compensation and to bring it into line with that of other universities in the region. Yet after thirty years—and after virtually all the other universities in the region have unionized—Rhode Island holds the same position it held in 1970 with respect to other institutions in the region. However, the current average total compensation at Rhode Island is above those figures at virtually every southern institution with the exception of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill and the University of Virginia. Collective bargaining seems to have significantly improved faculty compensation overall at the public universities in the northeastern region.

Wayne State University and Michigan State University

Wayne State University is a major metropolitan public university in the state of Michigan. The faculty at Wayne State unionized in the mid-70s and had at least three strikes between 1984 and 1994 during a period when there were only 48 strikes at colleges and universities nationwide (Rhoades 15). This suggests that there was a conflictual relationship between the faculty and the state-elected Board of Governors and, by implication, a political climate that was not friendly to the economic interests of the faculty. The leading public university in Michigan is the University of Michigan, and in general the faculty of that university receives significantly higher compensation than the faculty at Wayne State. The committee concluded that a more appropriate and meaningful comparison would be between Wayne State and Michigan State University. Currently, Wayne State has about 30,729 students, including 13,000 graduate students, and 2,701 faculty. Michigan State has 43,366 students, including 7,657 graduate students, and 2,718 ranked faculty.

In 1969-70, the average salaries at Wayne State and Michigan State were virtually identical, $13,400 and $13,600, respectively. The average total compensation was $15,000 and $15,500, respectively, a difference of 3.3%. Over the next decade, when the AAUP stopped recording average salaries and compensation for all ranks, Wayne State faculty in the upper ranks had higher salaries and total compensation than their counterparts at Michigan State, while the opposite was true for Wayne State faculty in the lower ranks. This pattern actually continued until 1987-88 when Michigan State surpassed Wayne State in average compensation within each rank except for assistant professor. Yet this victory was short-lived because in 1988-89 Wayne State surpassed Michigan State within each rank. Nonetheless, Michigan State's average total compensation for all ranks surpasses that of Wayne State throughout the last twenty years. This suggests that over the long term Michigan State may have been consistently more top-heavy than Wayne State, i.e., it may have had more professors in the upper ranks who receive higher compensation and bring the average up. Perhaps its faculty has been more stable with less turnover at the lower ranks. In the 90s, Wayne State continued to have slightly higher average salaries by rank, but there was a lot of fluctuation in the different ranks at both universities. In the academic year 2000-01, Michigan State surpassed Wayne State in average total compensation within each rank except for instructors or lecturers. At the same time, Michigan State's salaries by rank were all lower than Wayne State's. As noted above, Michigan State has better fringe benefits.

In any case, there is no evidence that Wayne State has the definite upper hand in its competition with Michigan State. Since both Michigan universities are under the governance of state-elected boards and are in locations with a history of strong unionization, there seems to be no way of distinguishing the political environment of one from that of the other. The most telling difference between the two universities is that tenured professors tend to earn higher salaries at Wayne State. This may reflect the fact that the latter institution centers more on graduate study than does Michigan State and has had to compete more for top faculty to teach in graduate programs.

Overall, LSU salaries and total compensation cannot compare with the same figures at these two institutions.

REVIEW OF CONTRACTS

After reviewing a couple of contracts, the committee came to the conclusion that it had neither the time nor the expertise to study union contracts in general, even at research universities. Therefore, we limited ourselves to exploring particular issues relevant to the popular perception of collective bargaining among professors at research universities. Since Gary Rhoades's Managed Professionals is a study of union contracts in higher education, it gave us some direction. He based his research on 212 collective bargaining agreements for faculty, negotiated in the 1990s, which is about 45% of all faculty contracts for that period, including contracts negotiated by the NEA, the AFT, and the AAUP. Rhoades sums up the topics covered by these contracts in the following list: "wages and salary structures; personnel procedures and work-force matters such as retrenchment and layoffs and the use and ratio of part- to full-time faculty; use of instructional technology; outside employment and intellectual property; academic freedom; affirmative action; benefits such as leaves, insurance, professional development and training; rights of management and the association; and grievance and arbitration procedures" (19). The contracts referred to below are all available online at the chapter websites: United University Professions at www.uupinfo.org, the University of Rhode Island Chapter of the AAUP at www.ele.uri.edu/aaup, University of Cincinnati Chapter of the AAUP at www.aaupuc.org, Wayne State University Chapter of the AAUP/AFT at home.msen.com/%7Eaaupaft, and United Faculty of Florida at www.unitedfacultyofflorida.org.

The committee reviewed five contracts between: 1) the United University Professions of the State University of New York (AFT-affiliated) and the executive branch of that state; 2) the University of Rhode Island Chapter of the AAUP and the Rhode Island Board of Governors; 3) the University of Cincinnati Chapter of the AAUP and its Board of Trustees; 4) the Wayne State University Chapter of the AAUP-AFT and its Board of Governors; and 5) United Faculty of Florida (AFT/NEA-affiliated) and the Board of Regents of the Florida system.

From this review, we derived the following conclusions:

  • All five contracts have strong provisions protecting academic freedom, though the strongest provisions are those negotiated by the chapters of the AAUP.
  • All five contracts have references to merit increases, though they do not always use those terms. The United University Professions at SUNY or UUP and Wayne State contracts allot an amount equal to 1% of all the salaries for a given year to be used as a discretionary fund for merit raises. The Wayne State contract specifies that three sevenths of the discretionary fund will be used to reward scholarship, three sevenths to reward teaching, and one seventh to reward service. It also specifies that the university should make adjustments in compensation "to reflect competitive changes in the academic market, to reward outstanding professional contributions, and to effect the correction of inequities." The University of Cincinnati contract is a little vague in permitting the university to give raises in response to bona fide outside offers, to correct inequity, or to reward outstanding professional contributions. The United Faculties of Florida or UFF contract specifically links all salary increases to annual performance evaluations, so that in a sense all of their raises are merit raises, though they have specified minimum increases for everyone. The University of Rhode Island contract specifies across-the-board raises and additional merit raises based on performance.
  • As Rhoades points out, clauses concerning equity increases are rare, though they are more likely to appear in the contracts of four-year institutions. In our sample, the Florida contract has specific procedures for equity raises based on performance and market considerations. The Wayne State contract requires consideration of equity in the determination of all raises. The other contracts make no obvious reference to equity.
  • All five contracts have complicated procedures for responding to retrenchment, which is the dismissal of an employee due to financial exigency, reallocation of resources, or academic reorganization. All the contracts have procedures for the order of termination, usually based on rank and/or seniority. They all have procedures for reassignment or recall and reinstatement. The strongest variation among the contracts involves the requirements and procedures for consulting faculty organizations on exigency or reorganization. The contracts that were not negotiated by AAUP chapters are usually the weakest in this area. The UUP contract allows the chancellor to determine the appropriateness and nature of any consultation with faculty organizations. The UFF contract requires the president to consult with the union, but there are no strong procedures for guaranteeing that faculty organizations get a strong hearing. The University of Rhode Island contract says that the union must be consulted if they request it, but they do not spell out the procedures in detail. The University of Cincinnati contract is the strongest and most detailed in this area. In anticipation of financial exigency, the union must be consulted and given access to data on the economic situation of the university. Both the administration and the union present recommendations to the Board of Trustees, either jointly or separately. After the declaration of exigency, a committee is formed with 7 members appointed by the administration and 7 appointed by the AAUP, and the board must consider its recommendations. If it decides to reject those recommendations, it must express this decision in a public meeting where faculty and students may express their views. In case of academic reorganization, similar procedures are followed although it is the faculty senate that appoints faculty members to the review committee, with one AAUP non-voting member. (LSU has similar procedures on the books for the case of exigency, though not for the case of academic reorganization.) The Wayne State contract requires consultation with the academic units under review in the case of anticipated exigency or reorganization. After the units present written recommendations, the administration and union meet to discuss possible solutions. Finally, after exigency is declared, a committee is formed with members appointed by the president and by the faculty senate, with an AAUP non-voting member, to determine the appropriate procedures to follow.
  • Four contracts have clear procedures for dismissal with cause, and one contract provides for suspension and discipline but does not refer to the termination of a faculty member with tenure. The AAUP chapters at University of Rhode Island, Wayne State University, and University of Cincinnati more or less follow the AAUP policy statement on dismissal proceedings. The most liberal policy is at the University of Cincinnati, which defines adequate cause for dismissal as "a reason related directly and substantially to the professional fitness of the Faculty Member and includes serious professional misconduct, gross neglect of professional duties, incompetence, or moral turpitude." A hearing must take place before the University Faculty Grievance Committee, and their decision is binding unless the Administration, the AAUP, or the faculty member requests arbitration. The other institutions have similar procedures, though they usually define adequate cause more loosely as incompetence or misconduct without the use of words like "serious" or "gross." The contract of the UUP has similar procedures for discipline and suspension, but there are no references to actual dismissal with cause. This language may exist in some other statute of the state or university.
  • The contracts of the Wayne State AAUP, the UUP, and the UFF have significant policies on intellectual property, though in some cases you have to go to the statutes of the Board of Governors or Trustees to find the policy written out. In a Memorandum of Agreement attached to their most recent contract, the University of Rhode Island AAUP and its Board of Governors have agreed to convene a joint study committee "to recommend contractual language and safeguards concerning distance education and intellectual property rights." Though the University of Cincinnati AAUP has no language in its contract that covers these issues, the University has an Intellectual Property Office with well-developed policies. In general, these institutions and the contracts protect the rights of faculty with respect to intellectual property.
  • Most of the references to gender in these contracts pertain to non-discrimination clauses and affirmative action. The University of Cincinnati contract calls on the institution to correct inequity based on gender, and there is a detailed gender equity report on its website. The Wayne State contract provides $50,000 to give released-time from teaching to minority and women faculty members in the union.
  • The contracts at the University of Rhode Island, University of Cincinnati, and Wayne State University have clauses that prohibit strikes during the period of the agreement. However, the Cincinnati contract explicitly reserves the right to strike once the agreement has expired. Strikes of public employees are illegal in Florida and New York.

Overall, the contracts suggest that collective bargaining can empower the faculty if they are negotiated and written effectively. They can protect faculty rights and limit managerial discretion through the construction of formal rules and procedures. For example, after reviewing retrenchment provisions in 178 contracts, Rhoades came to appreciate what the union at Wayne State University considered to be its "greatest victory": an 18 months notice for the layoff of tenured faculty (127).

COLLECTIVE BARGAINING AGENTS

On this issue, the committee quickly came to a consensus. When the Universities of Rhode Island, Massachusetts, and Connecticut unionized in the 70s, there was a competition between the three agents: AFT, NEA, and AAUP. However, the review of contracts in the last section, the research, including the history of the institutions mentioned above, and our direct contact with the agents themselves, convinced the committee that the AAUP is the best collective bargaining agent for an extensive research university like LSU. There may be some reasons for affiliating with both the AAUP and the AFT, but we were not impressed with the record of the AFT in this region and with our brief contact with them. In negotiating contracts, the AAUP pursues other issues besides compensation that are important to research faculty. In fact, the contracts at the University of Cincinnati and Wayne State University should be models for contracts at research universities. The NEA and the AFT are more traditional unions whose values may not always coincide with the values of research faculty. An article by Daniel Eisenberg, a former president of the United Faculty of Florida chapter at Florida State University, details the sorts of problems that can arise in a union with a overly "workerist" mentality (see "The Editor's Column: United Faculty of Florida," Journal of Hispanic Philology, 11 (1987): 97-101). As he stresses, such a mentality can lead to a disconnect between the union and the faculty itself, which in Florida led to a situation in which the good of the union became more important than the good of the faculty. In the AAUP, a faculty is relatively autonomous while drawing on the resources and experience of the national organization and its locals. The highest-paid faculty at a public university in this country is at Rutgers at Newark, a "research-intensive" institution, and they are represented by an AAUP local.

In the opinion of this committee, if the LSU faculty should choose to unionize, they should affiliate themselves with the AAUP.

THE VIEW OF THE LSU ADMINISTRATION

The committee met with Chancellor Mark Emmert, Executive Vice-Chancellor and Provost Dan Fogel, and Associate Vice-Chancellor (at that time) Forest Benedict. Though all three administrators were helpful in giving the committee insight into the problems that would face the faculty if they choose to unionize, their views were not unpredictable. The primary objection of Vice-Chancellor Fogel was that a union would damage the excellent relations that currently exist between the administration and the faculty at LSU. Though there is clearly some merit in this viewpoint, it seems equally clear that the administration tends to idealize its relation to the faculty. In the same meeting, Associate Vice-Chancellor Benedict warned that collective bargaining can change the nature of faculty life dramatically; but he advised that if we choose to go that route, we should try to do something creative and groundbreaking and not follow in the footsteps of the Florida system where things seem to be falling apart.

The committee's most illuminating discussion was with Chancellor Emmert, who had the experience of working as an administrator at an institution with a unionized faculty, the University of Connecticut. He noted that in the right political environment a union can be an effective instrument for realizing faculty interests, but he doesn't believe that Louisiana is the right environment. Connecticut is a pro-union state with a wealthy tax base, while Louisiana has a problematic tax base without the presence of powerful unions. He thinks the experience in Louisiana might be closer to the experience at the University of New Hampshire, where the union has been in a conflictual relationship with its Board of Trustees since it started in the early 90s. The Chancellor feared that a union at LSU could have a negative effect on his ongoing efforts to improve funding and enhance state support for the institution.

ALTERNATIVES TO COLLECTIVE BARGAINING

The first alternative to collective bargaining is faculty activism through the institutions of shared governance like the faculty senate. Many faculty senates have budget and compensation committees that try to influence the decisions of their administrations and state legislatures. Hutcheson refers to this process as informal collective bargaining and notes that it "results from administrative decisions to involve the faculty to one degree or another." However, the move of the AAUP into collective bargaining in the 70s may suggest the failure of informal collective bargaining and "the forms of institutional governance that the AAUP favored [up to that time, at any rate], based on its professional ideals" (66). In the opinion of this committee, if the Faculty Senate decides to abandon any further consideration of collective bargaining, it should constitute another committee to investigate ways of strengthening the Faculty Senate itself and of enhancing the role of the faculty in the governance of LSU.

Another step that the faculty could take toward improving their situation in this state would be to join and strongly support the efforts of the AAUP chapter on this campus. If faculty members entered that organization in some numbers, they could turn it into an effective organization for expressing faculty interests. AAUP chapters have engaged in lobbying, educating faculty and the public on critical issues, and holding the administration more accountable to faculty interests.

  • In the committee's phone interview with Stephen L. Finner, the Director of Chapter and State Services for the AAUP, we learned that it is difficult to develop an effective AAUP chapter without collective bargaining. The chapter at Auburn University is considered to be one of the more effective chapters in the South, and the committee contacted Associate Professor Larry Gerber as a spokesman for that chapter. The faculty members at Auburn are prohibited by state law from unionizing, but their chapter was galvanized during the years when their university was under an AAUP censure. Currently, the chapter has about 100 members. The executive committee meets regularly with the president of the university, and the chapter engages in a number of activities: lobbying, sending out press releases, bringing in speakers, rewriting the university handbook, participating on critical committees of the faculty senate, doing research on compensation through a salaries committee, and generally promoting the issue of shared governance on campus. Clearly, this chapter of the AAUP has made a difference at Auburn, but its activities don't seem that different from the activities of the AAUP or the Faculty Senate on this campus during their best years. Unless the AAUP chapter on campus can attract more members who are committed to using the organization to advance faculty interests, it is difficult to see how it can be an alternative to collective bargaining.

CONCLUSIONS

The committee has no clear consensus on whether the LSU faculty should pursue collective bargaining as the appropriate means of fostering their economic and professional interests. In general, the committee members appreciate and approve of the Chancellor's work, but a question was raised with him and with Executive Vice-Chancellor Fogel: what happens to the LSU faculty if the Chancellor leaves? Can we assume that the next head of the university will have the same political and diplomatic skills? In other words, is it wise for the faculty to pin its fate to one person?

While the committee is not unanimously for or against collective bargaining, there is a consensus that the LSU faculty is not adequately compensated, either in terms of salary or fringe benefits, and that it does not have an adequate voice in the governance of this university. Collective bargaining is one way to address these shortcomings, but the committee wants to stress that these shortcomings should be addressed whether or not collective bargaining is initiated. In this context, shared-governance is the critical concept, and such governance should include faculty involvement in the determination of policies as well as faculty involvement through consultation and discussion of policies. Shared-governance needs to be enhanced in the following areas: university organization (e.g., departmental and college mergers), budgetary planning (at departmental, college, and university levels), faculty compensation policies, and discussions of university agendas with legislators and community leaders. As we begin to search for a new Executive Vice-Chancellor and Provost, it is particularly timely to examine faculty input in setting the agenda of the university.

  • Many of the shared-governance issues should be undertaken by the Faculty Senate and its Executive Committee. However, this requires that the Faculty Senate Executive Committee either broaden or change its agenda to include these items. Currently, the Executive Committee devotes a great deal of effort to "fighting fires," particularly those identified by the administration. Thus, it is necessary for the Executive Committee to evaluate whether such agenda changes are worthwhile. We suggest that the current Executive Committee consider the agenda changes noted above and report to the Faculty Senate as a whole on the appropriateness of changing the agenda. (Some of these items may already be included in Executive Committee business; if this is the case, it should be noted.)
  • There is a consensus on the committee that there is very little tangible faculty input regarding budget planning issues that affect the university as a whole and compensation issues that affect each faculty member. Specifically, the University Budget Committee has not exercised significant planning and oversight functions in recent years. Moreover, this is something that the university was criticized for in the last SAACS review, i.e., that budgets are not connected to plans and goals at LSU. To rectify these shortcomings, three resolutions are offered in the final section of this report.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Since the committee has no clear consensus, we recommend the following procedure in order to determine the next step of the Faculty Senate in its consideration of collective bargaining:

  1. At the next meeting of the Faculty Senate after the presentation of the report of this committee, we call for a vote on the following resolution:

    Be it resolved that the LSU Faculty Senate invites the American Association of University Professors to send a representative from the national organization to LSU for the purpose of addressing this Faculty Senate and any other interested organizations on this campus on the viability of collective bargaining for the LSU faculty.

  2. Following the appearance of the speaker from the national AAUP headquarters and the publication of the report of this committee online so that it is available to the entire faculty, a poll will be developed and distributed to all faculty to determine faculty opinions about collective bargaining and shared-governance. This questionnaire/poll should be undertaken by an ad hoc committee appointed by the Faculty Senate Executive Committee, and consist of faculty members with professional expertise on developing such polling data.

  3. After the appearance of the speaker from the national AAUP headquarters, the publication of this committee's report online, and the analysis of the polling data, the committee puts forward the following resolutions for the consideration of the Faculty Senate:

    Be it resolved that the Faculty Senate of Louisiana State University calls on its Executive Committee to institute proceedings in consultation with national representatives of the AAUP and representatives of any other interested organizations to form a collective bargaining unit for the LSU faculty.

    Be it resolved that the LSU Budget Committee reconstitute its role so that faculty participate in budget planning activities, this participation to include assisting in the preparation of the executive planning budgets that help to steer the direction of the institution. A report by the Executive Committee to the senate and the Board of Supervisors shall be presented, evaluating the effectiveness of any changes that are adopted.

    Be it resolved that an independent faculty-driven audit of the university budget be financed by the administration. This service is provided for a nominal fee by the national AAUP and should be performed at LSU.

    Be it resolved that the Executive Committee of the Faculty Senate constitute a Compensation Committee, consisting exclusively of faculty members without administrative posts, annually to evaluate and determine the fairness of LSU salaries and fringe benefits in comparison with other comparable institutions throughout the nation, paying attention also to the fairness of merit increases and general equity. This committee will report periodically, within a time-frame to be determined by the Executive Committee, on the success or failure of the university in meeting the goal of fairness in faculty compensation.

APPENDIX I

TAXES AND COST OF LIVING COMPARED BETWEEN UNIVERSITY CITIES

DATA FROM THE WEBSITE BEST PLACES NET (LISTED AT THE UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN, DOCUMENTS CENTER,
STATISTICAL RESOURCES ON THE WEB, COST OF LIVING).

CITIES SALES TAXES IN % INCOME TAXES IN % PROPERTY TAX PER $1000 OF VALUATION COST OF LIVING COMPARED* BEST PLACES AND ACCRA COMPOSITE NUMBERS COMPARED**

BATON ROUGE, LA 8 4 $5.00 $50, 000 101 104.6
TUCSON, AZ 7 3.9 $11.00 $49,158 99.3 99.9
RIVERSIDE, CA 7.5 7.25 $11.30 $53,119 107.3 106
WASHINGTON, DC 11.75 9.5 $11.70 $61,386 124 112.9
IOWA CITY, IA 5 7.92 $20.60 $49,059 99.1  
BLOOMINGTON, IN 5 4.1 $13.60 $50,495 102  
CHAMPAIGN-URBANA, IL 6.25 3 $26.60 $46,436 93.8 103.2
LAWRENCE, KS 5.9 6.25 $16.20 $50,792 102.6  
DETROIT, MI 6 7.4 $14.20 $52,079 105.2 107.1
LANSING, MI 6 5.4 $18.00 $48,465 97.9 97.8
COLUMBIA, MO 4.22 6 $10.10 $46,782 94.4 98.6
ST LOUIS, MO 5.22 7 $15.10 $48,416 97.8 96.6
LINCOLN, NE 6 6.68 $22.60 $49,257 99.5 104.3
NEW BRUNSWICK, NJ BASED ON MIDDLESEX, NJ 6 2.45 $24.80 $62,475 126.2  
ALBUQUERQUE, NM 5.75 7.10 $15.00 $50,000 101 100.6
STONY BROOK, NY BASED ON NASSAU COUNTY 4 7.12 $24.60 $70,941 143.3 140.5
BINGHAMTON, NY 4 7.12 $32.50 $47,624 96.2 96
BUFFALO, NY 8 7.12 $35.00 $48,069 97.1 102.5
ALBANY, NY 4 7.12 $27.80 $50,050 101.1  
CINCINATTI, OH 5.5 7.09 $15.20 $48,465 97.9 98.3
COLUMBUS, OH 5.75 6.99 $19.50 $49,307 99.6 106.9
OKLAHOMA, OK 7.37 7 $11.00 $44,703 90.3 94.1
EUGENE, OR 0 9 $14.60 $52,426 105.9 109.8
PITTSBURGH, PA 6 4.68 $19.90 $49,257 99.5 109.5
UNIVERSITY PARK BASED ON STATE COLLEGE, PA 6 2.8 $13.80 $49,554 100.1  
AUSTIN, TX 8 0 $21.90 $47,624 96.2 99
SALT LAKE CITY, UT 6 7 $8.00 $53,020 107.1 99
BURLINGTON, VT 5 7 $20.70 $56,139 113.4  
MILWAUKEE, WI 5.5 6.93 $25.80 $52,970 107 105.3
TUSCALOOSA, AL 4 5 $4.00 $49,554 100.1 98.4
FAYETTEVILLE, AR 4.63 7 $9.00 $45,644 92.2 90.6
GAINESVILLE, FL 6 0 $19.60 $49,802 100.6  
ATHENS, GA 4 6 $13.10 $49,208 99.4  
LEXINGTON, KY 6 8 $9.80 $49,970 96.9 98.5
CHAPEL HILL, NC BASED ON RALEIGH, NC 6 7 $11.00 $53,317 107.7 104.4
COLUMBIA, SC 5 7 $12.70 $47,970 96.9 93.3
MEMPHIS, TN 8.25 0 $12.30 $45,703 92.4 89.2
KNOXVILLE, TN 8.25 0 $7.80 $47,228 95.4 92.5
CHARLOTTESVILLE, VA 3.5 5.75 $11.90 $60,297 121.8  

*This column compares an income of $50,000 in Baton Rouge with an equivalent income, adjusted for cost of living, in the other cities.

**This column compares Best Places composite numbers, which take state taxes into account, with the most reliable cost-of-living numbers, from ACCRA (American Chamber of Commerce Researcher's Association), which do not take state taxes into account. In both cases, the average for all areas reported is 100, and each area's index is a percentage of the average.

APPENDIX II

1=Full Professor
2=Associate Professor
3=Assistant Professor
4=Lecturer or Instructor
5=All Ranks
*=Volume Missing from LSU Library

TABLE I

AVERAGE COMPENSATION 1970-2001 (in thousands of dollars)

Source: AAUP Salary Surveys

Year LSU Wayne State University

(unionized mid 70s)

Michigan State University

(not unionized)

University of Rhode Island

(unionized early 70s)

University of Vermont

(not unionized until 2001)

  1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
69-70         12.9         15         15.5         14.2         13.1
70-71 19.2 15 12.3 9.1   22.3 17.1 13.1 9.3   21.1 16.6 14.2 11.7   21.1 16.1 13.1 10.6   19.5 15.7 12.9 9.8  
71-72 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
72-73 21.8 16.6 13.2 10.1   23.9 18.2 13.9 9.7   23.3 18 15.4 12.9   22.7 17.5 14.1 11.1   20.5 16.4 13.5 10.8  
73-74 22.6 17.2 13.9 10.7   26.7 17.8 14.9 11.4   24.7 19.5 16.4 13.2   24.5 18.9 15.3 12.1   22.5 17 13.3 11.4  
74-75 23.6 17.8 14.9 11.7   29.3 22.2 16.7 11.4   26.7 20.8 17.3 14.2   26 20 16.3 12.4   24 19.1 15.8 12.7  
75-76 26.4 19.8 16.4 12.8   30.5 23.7 17.7 12.5   28.1 22.4 18.6 15.2   26.5 20.5 16.7 12.7   25.6 20.3 17.1 13.4  
76-77 26.4 20.1 16.5 13   31.6 24.4 18.3 13   29.1 22.9 19.2 18.1   28.5 21.9 17.8 13.4   26.5 20.9 17.9 14.4  
77-78 29.6 22.5 18.6 14.7   33.6 25.9 19.3 14.4   31.1 24.7 20.7 18.3   30.1 23.2 18.6 14   28.2 22.4 19.1 17.1  
78-79 29.1 22.4 18.7 14.4   35.7 26.4 20.6 15.1   33.1 26.2 22.1 18.7   32 24.9 19.9 14.2   29.7 23.4 19.9    
79-80 33 25.6 21.2 16   37.7 29.1 22 16.3   35.6 27.9 23.5 20.3   34.1 27 21.9 15.4   32.2 25.1 21.1    
80-81 37.7 28.9 23.8 17.4 28.5 41.2 31.4 23.9 17.2 30.8 39.2 30.8 26.4 22.9 34 37.3 29.5 24.1 17.1 31.1 34.9 27.4 22.9 17.7 27.8
81-82 40.9 31.2 25.9 18.9 30 44 33.6 25.8 18.5 33.4 43.2 33.8 28.4 20 36.4 39.9 30.9 25.8 19.3 32.7 38.9 30.4 24.9 20.5 30.9
82-83 39.4 30.1 24.8 17.4 29.6 47.3 36.2 28.2 20 36.9 44.7 34.1 29.3 24.2 38.3 41.6 33.4 27.9 19.5 35.3 43.1 33.4 27.4   34.4
83-84         29.6         38.7         40.5         36.9         37.9
84-85 46.3 35 29.9 21.5 35 49.5 37 30.8 24.1 39.1 49.2 38.1 32.7 27.3 42.5 45.8 36.5 32 24.9 39.3 50.4 39.2 31.8 24.9 39.3
85-86 47.4 35.5 30 22.5 35.9 53.1 39.9 33.8 26.1 42.1 52.4 40.4 34.9 27.7 45.1 49.6 39.5 35.1 26.1 43 54.3 41.7 34.3 26.4 42.3
86-87 50.6 38.4 32.6 22.8 38.4 58.7 45.3 38.2 26.7 47.1 56.6 43.7 37.7 29.6 48.6 54.2 43.1 37.3 27.4 46.9 57.4 43.6 35.7 29.1 44.6
87-88 51.7 38.3 33.3 22.9 39.3 61 47.5 41.6 29.3 48.8 62.6 48.4 41 31.1 53.1 59.1 46.5 39.4 41 50.7 61.6 46.7 39.2   47.9
88-89 55.5 41.2 35.6 24.2 41.9 66.2 51.9 44.6 38.8 52.7 66 51.9 43 33 56.3 65.1 51 43.4 45.9 55.8 66.1 50 42.5   51.1
89-90 61.8 45.5 39.9 27.4 47.1 71.3 55.8 48.5   56.7 71.2 55.9 46 35.6 60.8 68.6 54 46 50.1 59.2 70.1 52.8 43.8   53.9
90-91 66.6 49.5 43.9 30.3 51.7 76 58.8 51.4   59.7 75.7 59.3 49.1 37.3 65 73 57.3 48.7   62.8 74.4 56.5 46.7   57.8
92-93 71.3 52.9 46.7 31.6 55.9 82 64.5 55.1 44.7 64.8 80.2 62.7 52.8 41.7 69.1 77.3 59.3 51.9   66.3 77.7 59.1 49.1   60.3
93-94 71.1 52.7 46.1 31.8 55.9 84.6 66.4 56 46.9 66.9 84.3 66.3 56.9 44.6 73.2 81.3 62.2 54.8   70.3 77 58.6 48.6   59.2
94-95 71 52.7 46 31.8 55.7 86.9 68.7 55.2 50.9 67.7 86.6 67.6 58.7 46.5 75.1 85.6 65 58.1   74.5 77.2 60 48.4   59.9
95-96 71.1 53.2 46.2 32.5 56 88.9 69 55. 50.1 68 88.3 69.5 59.5 44.1 76 84.5 64.6 56.6   74 79.4 61.3 49.4   62
96-97           92.6 71.3 57 50.5 70.3 91.5 71.8 61.3 47 79.3 87.6 66.6 56.7   76.6 82.2 63.5 50.8   63.8
97-98 81.7 61.8 52.3 36.4 63.8 95.5 73.6 57.2 51 71.9 92 73.7 64.2 51 80.5 89.6 68.4 56.9   78.2 83.9 64.5 51.9   65.1
98-99 84.5 62.5 54.1 37.1 63.4 99.7 77.2 59.4 53.8 75.2 97.7 75.4 63 47.6 83.1 92.9 70.7 58   80.8 86.4 66.7 54.3   67.6
99-00 85.5 63.8 56.1 38 65.5 103.6 79.6 61.8 55.3 78 103.3 78.8 65.4 46 86.9 97.1 73.8 59.7   84.5 88.2 68.5 55.4   68.8
00-01 85.9 63.8 56 38.3 65.4 107.5 84.1 65 55.4 81.7 109.5 85.1 70 49.5 92 101.2 77.3 61.9    87.1 90.9 70.9 58.3   71.3

TABLE II

AVERAGE SALARY 1970-2001 (in thousands of dollars)

Source: AAUP Salary Surveys

Year LSU Wayne State University

(unionized mid 70s)

Michigan State University

(not unionized)

University of Rhode Island

(unionized early 70s)

University of Vermont

(not unionized until 2001)

  1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
69-70         12.4             13.4         13.6             12.5         12
70-71                                                            
71-72 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
72-73                                                            
73-74                                                            
74-75                                                            
75-76                                                            
76-77 23.7 18 14.7 11.5   27.1 20.7 15.8 11.6    24.8 19.2 15.9 14.6   24.8 18.8 15.4 11.8    22.2 17.1 14.5 11.6  
77-78 26.4 19.9 16.5 12.9   28.8 21.9 16.6 12.9    26.4 20.7 17.1 15   26 19.6 16 12.5    23.5 18.2 15.3 12.8  
78-79 26.5 20.3 16.9 13   30.5 22.3 17.6 13.2    28 21.8 18.2 15.2   27.6 21.1 17.1 12.6    24.6 19.1 16.1    
79-80 30 23.2 19.1 14.4   31.8 24.1 18.7 14    29.9 23.1 19.3 16.5   28.9 22.5 18.5 13.3    26.6 20.5 17    
80-81 33.8 25.9 21.3 15.6 25.6 34.8 26.1 20.3 15.1 26 32.5 25.2 21.3 18.4 28 31.1 24.2 20.1 14.8 25.8 28.9 22.3 18.5 14.1 22.7
81-82 36.8 28 23.3 16.9 27.6 36.7 27.6 21.6 16.1 27.8 35.8 27.7 23 15.8 29.9 32.3 25.5 21.6 15.9 27.2 31.9 24.6 20 16.3 25
82-83 38.5 29.3 24.2 17 28.9 39.2 29.4 23.4 17.2 30.4 36.8 27.7 23.5 19.2 31.3 34.4 27.4 23.2 16.3 29.2 34.9 26.7 21.7   27.5
83-84 38.7 28.9 24.4 17.2 28.9 40.6 30.2 24.2 17.7 31.8 38.7 29 24.8 19.6 32.9 35.8 28.4 24.9 17.6 30.4 38 29.3 23.5   29.9
84-85 41.4 31.2 26.5 18.8 31.2 40.7 30 24.7 19 31.8 40.3 30.4 25.8 21.3 34.4 37.3 29.5 26.4 20.5 32 40.3 31 24.8 19.3 31.1
85-86 41.9 31.2 26.3 19.5 31.6 43.6 32.3 27.2 20.6 34.2 42.8 32.3 27.6 21.5 36.4 40.2 31.7 28.1 20.7 34.6 43.6 32.7 26.8 20.6 37.5
86-87 44.9 34 29 20.3 34 48.2 36.7 31.3 23.1 38.6 46.1 34.8 29.7 22.8 39.2 43.5 34.2 29.9 22.2 37.5 46.1 34.3 28.1 22.7 35.3
87-88 46.1 34 29.4 20.1 34.9 50.8 38.7 33.7 23.2 40.1 51.3 38.7 32.4 24 43 47.5 36.8 31.5 32.7 40.5 49.2 36.3 30.6   37.6
88-89 49 36.1 31.1 20.8 36.8 53.4 41 35.9 28.1 42.2 53.5 40.9 33.4 24.9 45 51.7 39.8 33.9 36.6 44 52.7 38.8 33.4   40.2
89-90 51 37.3 32.5 22.4 38.6 57.6 44.2 38.8    45.4 57.1 43.5 34.9 26.2 48 55.2 42.7 36.7 41.4 47.3 55.9 40.9 34.3   42.4
90-91                                                            
91-92                                                            
92-93                                                            
93-94 59.4 43.7 37.9 26.3 46.4 68.3 52.5 44.7 39.9 53.5 65.1 49.3 41.3 30.9 55.5 63 47.3 41.6    54.1 60.6 45 37   45.8
94-95 59.3 43.7 37.9 26.3 46.2 70.2 54.4 44.2 42.6 54.3 67.2 50.7 43.1 32.8 57.3 66.5 49.6 43.9    57.4 61.3 46.7 37.3   46.9
95-96 59.2 43.9 37.8 26.7 46.5 72.6 55.2 45.2 41.8 55.9 68.8 52.3 43.7 30.7 58.8 65.3 49 42.8    57 63.1 47.6 38.3   48.6
96-97           76 57.3 46.6 41.7 57.4 71.3 54.1 45.2 33.1 60.7 68.4 51 43.5    59.4 65.3 49.4 39.7   50
97-98 67.5 50.5 42.6 29.6 52.4 78.9 59.9 47.5 42.7 59.3 74.2 55.8 46.5 33.2 62.7 70.4 52.9 44.1    61.2 67 50.9 40.9   51.5
98-99 69.8 51.1 44 30.1 51.9 82.1 62.6 48.9 44.2 61.6 77.5 58 47.5 34.5 64.9 73 54.9 45.1    63.2 69.4 52.6 42.8   53.7
99-00 71.2 52.6 46 31.1 54.2 84.3 63.6 49.9 45.6 63 81.5 60.4 49.1 32.6 67.4 76 57 46.2    65.9 70.7 53.8 43.5   54.5
00-01 72.5 53.1 46.5 31.7 54.8 87.2 67 52.5 45.7 65.9 85.2 63.9 51.2 33.8 70 78.8 59.5 48.1    67.7 72.5 55.3 45.3   56.1

TABLE III

AVERAGE SALARY INCREASES for Continuing Faculty (Percentage) 1970-2001

Source: AAUP Salary Surveys

Year LSU Wayne State University

(unionized mid 70s)

Michigan State University

(not unionized)

University of Rhode Island

unionized early 70s)

University of Vermont

(not unionized until 2001)

  1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5 1 2 3 4 5
69-70                                                            
70-71 8.2 7.5 7.8 7.7   5.8 6.5 6.9 7    7.1 9.4 11.7 10.9   8.3 8.6 8 12    9.1 10.5 10.9 9.7  
71-72 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
72-73                          4 4 4 4   8.3 8.3 8.5 8.6    2.6 3.2 3.8 3.5  
73-74 5 5 5 5   5.1 5.9 6.6 7.1              10 10.1 10.5 11.6    5.1 6.3 6.4 6.6  
74-75 5.64 5.64 5.64 5.64                            7.5 9.5 10 12    7.6 8.2 8.9 6.6  
75-76 5 5 5 5                            3.5 4.1 4.7 5.7    6.1 7 7 8  
76-77 4 4 4 4                            8.7 9.5 10.4 9.7    4.6 5.1 6.1 9.4  
77-78                          6.9 9.2 10 9.3   5.8 7.1 7.6 11.7    6.6 7.5 8.5 11.7  
78-79 5.5 6.1 6.9 5.7   7.6 8.7 9.5 10.5    7 8.2 9.1 11.5   7.5 8.7 9.7 13.7    6 6.4 7.2    
79-80 13.4 15.7 17.7 19.2   5.8 6.6 7.6 7.8    7.3 7.1 9 9.2   6.5 8.1 9.5 11.5    8.6 8.5 8.8    
80-81 12.8 13.8 14.6 14.4   9.2 9.9 10.1 10.9    10.6 12 13 11.1   8.4 9.1 9.6 16.2    10.1 10.2 10.8 8.4  
81-82 10.2 11.1 11.7 11.6   7.2 7.4 7.5 6.6    8.5 9.8 10.6 11.3                  10.2 10.2 10.4 10.2  
82-83 4.9 5.4 7.5 5.2   6.5 7.4 8.5 9.7              8.2 9.1 11.1       10.3 10.3 10.9 10.9  
83-84 .4 .9 1.9 1.6   4 3.8 4.5 4.3              5.1 5.7 6.3 7.5    8.6 9 8.8    
84-85                                    5.2 6.1 6.8 8.4    6.1 6.5 6.3    
85-86 .6 .7 1.3 .3                            8.2 7.9 5.9 4.4    7.1 7.2 8.3 10.4  
86-87           5.8 6.8 7.7 4.9    9 9.2 10 8.2   9 9.2 7.4       6.4 6.3 6.5 7  
87-88                          10.8 12.3 13.7 10.6   9.6 8.3 8.6       7.2 7.3 7.3    
88-89                          4.9 5.9 5.9 4.6   9.2 9.6 8.6 5.8    7.3 8.4 9.6    
89-90           4.9 6.2 6.7       6.7 6.9 6.8 10.9   7.3 9.4 10.1 6.9    6.2 6.2 6.5    
90-91           7 7.1 7.6                 4.6 5.8 5.8 5.7    6.2 6.3 5.9    
92-93 .2 1 1.1 1.6   1.8 2.7 3.2                 1.1 1 .1       1.9 2.2 2.6    
93-94 .3 .6 1.2 .5   3.5 3.8 3.7 1.8              6.9 6.8 5.2       .1 .1 .2    
94-95 .5 1.1 2.2 2   2.6 3.3 3.5 4.7              6.7 6.1 5.7       2.7 3.7 4.3    
95-96 1 1.6 2.3 1.1   3 3.2 3.6 2.6              .2 .1 .2       3.1 4.2 4.9    
96-97           3.7 4.2 4.5 3              5.7 5.3 3.9       4.4 5.1 6.1 9.4  
97-98 .4 1.3 1.7 1.2   3.8 4.7 4.8 2.9              4.2 4.8 3.4       3.8 4.3 4.9    
98-99 .8 .8 2.3 1.5   4.8 4.6 4.7 4.7              4.6 4.4 3.1       4.2 5.1 5.9 8  
99-00 5.5 5.9 7 5.5   2.9 3.4 3.5 2.9              5.6 4.8 3.9       3 3.4 4.3    
00-01 2 2.2 1.3 2.5   4.9 6 7 4.9              5.1 4.5 4.2       3.9 4.5 6 8.3