Victor G. Devinatz

REFLECTIONS OF A RANK-AND-FILE FACULTY UNION ORGANIZER AT A PUBLIC UNIVERSITY

Wheeler and McClendon’s model provides an excellent framework for understanding the dynamics of faculty union organizing drives, many of which occur at public universities. Since few faculty members are ideologically committed to unionism, it is important to utilize the rational calculation path and the emotional path during the organizing campaign, as opposed to the political/ideological beliefs path. When collecting authorization cards, the rational calculation path can be effectively utilized, but for a successful election vote to occur, the emotional path must also be successfully used. Based on the author’s personal organizing experience, this article provides tips, consistent with the use of the rational calculation path, for faculty union organizers to use when collecting authorization cards. In addition, there is a discussion on the importance of utilizing the emotional path to achieve a union victory in faculty certification elections. Although college and university faculty are not traditionally viewed as a widely unionized occupational group in the United States, faculty representation by unions has increased substantially since the arrival of faculty collective bargaining in the 1960s [1]. According to Rhoades’ figures, 242,221 faculty members on 1,057 campuses were covered by collective bargaining agreements in 1994 [2]. Unions represent nearly 44% of full-time faculty (if part-time faculties are added in, the figure drops to 26%) on 29% of all campuses throughout the United States. While faculty members at research universities remain

The Real Difference Between the Old Unionism and the New Unionism: A New Strategy for U.S. Public Sector Unions

In his book the The New Unionism in the New Society: Public Sector Unions in the Redistributive State, Troy argued that the goal of the “new unionism” (the public sector union movement) is to increase spending on social programs through the redistribution of income from the private to the public sector of the economy. According to Troy, the “old unionism” (the private sector union movement) conflicts with the new unionism specifically over the extent and funding of social programs. Despite this alleged philosophical difference, Troy’s book fails to distinguish the real difference between the old and the new unionism, which is centered on using different strategies toward goal attainment. This article describes a potentially successful new unionist strategy and evaluates its effectiveness and limitations in a number of public sector union strikes. The article concludes that this specific strategic orientation may contribute to future public sector union success. In his book The New Unionism in the New Society: Public Sector Unions in the Redistributive State, Leo Troy, a distinguished professor of economics at Rutgers University, made the provocative argument that a significant philosophical conflict exists between the “old unionism” (the private sector union movement) and the “new unionism” (the public sector union movement) [1]. According to Troy, the philosophical basis of the old unionism is “business unionism,” or the “philosophy of more” [1, p. 119], while the philosophical foundation of the new unionism is “social unionism,” or the belief of “increasing government inter-

Frank P. Zeidler's View on Public Sector Labor Relations as Milwaukee's Last Socialist Mayor, 1948-1960

Frank P. Zeidler, Milwaukee’s last Socialist mayor, considered a labor supporter by the city’s private sector labor unions, was not regarded as an ally by the public sector labor unions. Zeidler believed that public sector unions should neither have the legal right to strike nor the right to settle interest disputes with arbitration if a collective bargaining agreement could not be achieved. Initially, such positions appear to contradict Zeidler’s socialist politics but, upon further examination, are quite consistent with Zeidler’s particular brand of socialism, known as “municipal Socialism.” Under this philosophy, even though the Socialists depended on the working class and the labor unions for votes at election time, no sector of the labor movement, or even the working class as a whole, takes precedence over the effective administration of the city. Left-wing trade unionists of all stripes—Socialists, Communists, and AnarchoSyndicalists, for example—have actively participated in labor unions in the United States throughout the latter part of the nineteenth and the first half of the twentieth centuries. Socialists were active in the craft-oriented unions of the American Federation of Labor (AFL), founded in 1886, while the Industrial Workers of the World, established in 1905, was heavily influenced by anarchosyndicalist ideology. The Communists, after splitting from the Socialists in 1919, organized within the AFL unions through the Trade Union Educational League

Uncle Sam Does Not Want You to Organize: The 1977 Senate Armed Services Committee Hearings on Outlawing Military Unionization

From 1975-1977, the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE) made preliminary plans to unionize the U.S. military, which led to the introduction of a bill in the U.S. Senate in March 1976 to outlaw military unionization (S.3079). Because it was impossible to schedule hearings during the election year, the bill died, although in January 1977, a similar bill was introduced before the Senate (S.274). This article outlines the major arguments in opposition to military unionization presented by the Senate Armed Services Committee members as well as U.S. military leaders during the March and July 1977 hearings on S.274. In addition, an analysis of then-AFGE President Blaylock’s testimony before the committee is given. After presenting empirical evidence on the two closest equivalents to U.S. military unionism (i.e., U.S. police unionism and Western European military unionism), the article concludes by arguing that even if military unionization had not been outlawed in 1977, the AFGE probably would not have been able to successfully organize the U.S. military at that time. On June 27, 1975, the American Federation of Government Employees’ (AFGE) interest in unionizing the military became public when the Wall Street Journal ran a front-page article detailing the union’s plans. Shortly after the article’s publication, a variety of individuals and organizations, including military commanders, U.S. senators, and professional military associations, expressed vehement opposition to potential unionization of the military [1, p. 50]. Although