Content uploaded by Ivan Katchanovski
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Ivan Katchanovski
Content may be subject to copyright.
Érudit
est un consortium interuniversitaire sans but lucratif composé de l'Université de Montréal, l'Université Laval et l'Université du Québec à
Montréal. Il a pour mission la promotion et la valorisation de la recherche.
Érudit
offre des services d'édition numérique de documents
scientifiques depuis 1998.
Pour communiquer avec les responsables d'Érudit : erudit@umontreal.ca
Article
Ivan Katchanovski, Stanley Rothman et Neil Nevitte
Relations industrielles/ Industrial Relations
, vol. 66, n° 3, 2011, p. 349-373.
Pour citer cet article, utiliser l'information suivante :
URI: http://id.erudit.org/iderudit/1006343ar
DOI: 10.7202/1006343ar
Note : les règles d'écriture des références bibliographiques peuvent varier selon les différents domaines du savoir.
Ce document est protégé par la loi sur le droit d'auteur. L'utilisation des services d'Érudit (y compris la reproduction) est assujettie à sa politique
d'utilisation que vous pouvez consulter à l'URI http://www.erudit.org/apropos/utilisation.html
Document téléchargé le 3 septembre 2013 09:57
"Attitudes towards Faculty Unions and Collective Bargaining in American and Canadian
Universities"
© département des relations industrielles, université laval - issn 0034-379X – ri/ir, 66-3, 2011, 349-373 349
Attitudes towards Faculty Unions
and Collective Bargaining in
American and Canadian Universities
Ivan Katchanovski, Stanley Rothman and Neil Nevitte
The authors use the 1999 North American Academic Study Survey to
examine attitudes of American and Canadian faculty and administrators
towards faculty unions and collective bargaining. Comparative and
statistical analyses of the survey data show the effect of cultural,
institutional, political, positional, socio-economic, and academic factors on
support for collective bargaining and faculty unionism in American and
Canadian universities. Analysis of the survey data shows that US-Canada
differences generally outweigh positional differences among professors
and administrators. Such factors as political ideology, experience with
faculty bargaining, administrators’ opposition, institutional quality, income,
gender, and academic discipline, are found to be significant determinants of
the attitudes towards faculty unions and collective bargaining.
KEYWORDS: faculty, unions, political culture, US, Canada
Research Question and Previous Studies
Faculty unionization and collective bargaining in the United States and Canada have
often been overlooked in studies of higher education even though unions and col-
lective bargaining involve significant proportions of the professoriate in both coun-
tries. In 1998, 48.8 percent of faculty members in Canada were union members
(Akyeampong, 1999: 52). By the middle of the 2000s, an estimated union member-
ship rate among Canadian faculty was about 80 percent. In addition, most of the
faculty associations which represent the rest of the faculty are involved in bargaining
with the university administration (Dobbie and Robinson, 2008: 131-132).
The unionization rate of professors in the United States is much lower. In
1998, 20.7 percent of full time faculty and academic staff, including 26.8 percent
Ivan Katchanovski, Part-time Professor, School of Political Studies, University of Ottawa, Ontario
(ikatchan@uottawa.ca; ivan.katchanovski@utoronto.ca).
Stanley Rothman, Director, Center for the Study of Social and Political Change, Smith College, Northampton,
Massachusetts.
Neil Nevitte, Professor, Department of Political Science and School of Public Policy and Governance, University
of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario (n.nevitte@utoronto.ca).
We would like to thank anonymous reviewers for their comments and suggestions concerning this study and
Raul Colon for his Spanish translation of the summary. Responsibility for any mistakes remains our own.
3�0 relations industrielles /
industrial relations
– 66-3, 2011
in public two- and four-year colleges and universities, were members of a union
or an association that served as their bargaining agent1 (Benjamin, 2006: 35). In
2004, collective bargaining covered 27.4 percent of American full-time and part-
time faculty, including 20.7 percent in public four-year colleges and universities,
5.0 percent in four-year private schools, and 57.0 percent in two-year public
community colleges (Dobbie and Robinson, 2008: 123).
This study examines attitudes towards faculty unions and collective bargaining
among faculty and administrators in the United States and Canada. Indeed, it is the
first study which compares support for unionization and collective bargaining in
American and Canadian universities among faculty members and administrators.
The United States and Canada are selected for comparison because these two
neighbouring countries have relatively more similar higher education systems,
political systems, and levels of economic development than other countries.
There is a lack of private universities in Canada, but the public university systems
on both sides of the border are organized in similar ways, they expanded about
the same time, and there is a lot of cross-border traffic, e.g. there is a large
proportion of US-born and US-educated professors in Canada.2 Academics in
both countries face many similar issues. Unionization and collective bargaining
in universities in both the US and Canada took hold at about the same time, the
1960s (DeCew, 2003; Ladd and Lipset, 1973; Savage, 1994). Furthermore, the
World Values Survey data show that when it comes to “values,” Canada and the
US are more alike than any two other advanced industrial states, and their values
are converging (Nevitte, 1996). These features make these two neighbouring
countries particularly good cases for comparison when it comes to the issue of
unionism (Lipset, 1990; Lipset et al., 2004; Riddell, 1993).
Comparative studies of collective bargaining in higher education and faculty
unions in the US and Canada are rare. Previous analyses of these issues typically
focused on a single country (see, for example, Ladd and Lipset, 1973, 1975;
Monks, 2000; Nakhaie and Brym, 1999; Ng, 1989; Ponak and Thompson, 1979,
1984; Ponak, Thompson and Zerbe, 1992; Thompson and Ponak, 1983). A
recent comparative study reported significantly higher faculty union membership
rate and collective bargaining coverage in Canada than in the US (Dobbie and
Robinson, 2008). However, its main focus was an analysis of the effects of faculty
unions on the extent of reliance on non-tenure track faculty.
The primary question of interest is, which factors are the determinants of
attitudes towards faculty unions and collective bargaining in American and
Canadian universities and colleges? We hypothesize on a theoretical basis and
on the basis of previous studies that a variety of cultural, institutional, political,
positional, socio-economic, and academic factors are significant predictors of
these views.
attitudes towards faculty unions and collective bargaining in american and canadian universities 3�1
Previous comparative studies of American and Canadian unionism emphasize
different theories and factors of the divergent union membership rates in
these two countries. For example, some argue that political culture is the
main determinant of the union density gap. Political culture leads to a greater
demand for unionization north of the border, and it also accounts for more
union friendly legal and political institutions, such as laws and political parties,
in Canada compared to the United States. In particular, national values are one
of the major reasons for the absence of strong social-democratic parties in the
US, compared to Canada (Lipset, 1986, 1996; Lipset and Marks, 2001; Lipset et
al., 2004). In contrast, others argue that institutional and political factors drive
the divergence, while political culture has comparably little explanatory power
(Bruce, 1989; Riddell, 1993; Robinson, 1992, 2006). However, we propose that
these theories and factors need not be mutually exclusive, and that political
culture, institutions, and administrator opposition can all affect faculty unionism
in the US and Canada.
Our first hypothesis is that national political culture is a significant determinant
of attitudes toward faculty unionism and collective bargaining in the United States
and Canada. A substantial body of research suggests that Canadians share more
social-democratic and collectivist values, while Americans exhibit higher levels of
support for individualist and laissez faire values. The values-based theories are
used to explain, for example, an absence of a strong social-democratic party, a
smaller size of government, and a lower union density in the US than in Canada.
Similarly, US-Canada differences in foreign policies, economic policies, health-
care systems, and attitudes towards social issues are linked to distinct political,
economic, and social values in the two countries (Adams, 2004; Alston, Morris,
and Vedlitz, 1996; Lipset, 1990; Lipset et al., 2004).
However, political culture is not frozen. Values change, albeit slowly. Economic
development, transition from industrial to post-industrial society, globalization,
immigration, economic integration, and other such factors have induced changes
in values in the United States and Canada. A comparison of the World Values
Survey data shows a general trend towards convergence between Canadian
and American values (Inglehart, Nevitte and Basanez, 1996). Although a more
detailed analysis indicates convergence of economic values, a mixed pattern of
change of political values, and divergence of social values (Nevitte, 1996). Other
survey data also indicate that the social values of Americans and Canadians are
diverging (Adams, 2004).
Pro-union attitudes of academics in the US and Canada are likely to reflect
the pattern of differences in national political cultures. If the historical record
is any guide then these are reasons to expect that Canadian faculty and
administrators will hold much more supportive attitudes concerning unions and
3�2 relations industrielles /
industrial relations
– 66-3, 2011
collective bargaining in the institutions of higher education than their American
counterparts. A survey-based comparison of union density and attitudes
towards unions in the United States and Canada linked differences in union
membership rates, in particular, among professors and other professionals
in two countries to political culture (Lipset et al., 2004). The finding that
Americans, including professionals, such as professors and teachers, express
greater support for unions than their Canadian counterparts is explained by the
weakness of labour unions south of the border (Lipset et al., 2004; Lipset and
Katchanovski, 2001). That investigation of faculty unionization and attitudes,
however, relied upon a small number of professors in the national samples of
Americans and Canadians.
Values concerning fundamental political issues, such as the role of the
government, equality and income distribution, are likely to be of much greater
importance for attitudes towards the American and Canadian faculty unionism
than values concerning social issues, such as religion, family and abortion.
For example, the social-democratic index, which was derived from survey
questions dealing with such political issues, was found to positively affect union
membership in the US (Lipset and Katchanovski, 2001). However, survey evidence
indicates that social conservatism might also have significant effects (Ponak and
Thompson, 1979). Political and social liberalism is strongly associated with pro-
union attitudes of faculty members in the US and Canada (Ladd and Lipset, 1973;
Ponak and Thompson, 1984). As noted, several studies suggest that US-Canada
cultural differences concerning social issues are more pronounced compared
to differences concerning political issues (Adams, 2004; Inglehart, Nevitte and
Basanez, 1996; Nevitte, 1996). Therefore, we differentiate the effects of political
and social values in our analysis.
Values often vary significantly within each country across different regions,
generations, socio-economic and racial or ethnic groups (Adams, 2004; Inglehart,
Nevitte and Basanez, 1996; White, 2003). Regional political subcultures in both
countries are likely to affect attitudes towards faculty unionism. The historical
South is often regarded as politically and socially more conservative and more
hostile toward unions than other regions of the United States. In Canada, Quebec
is the most politically distinctive region. In addition to being predominantly
francophone, Quebec led the way in adopting labour-supportive legislation and
having the highest union density among major Canadian regions (Lipset, 1996:
88-96; Lipset et al., 2004: 103-117).
Political culture cannot by itself explain the magnitude of divergence in union
membership rates, in particular among faculty members in the US and Canada.
The cultural theory of the unionism gap has a difficult time accounting for
somewhat more friendly public attitudes towards labour unions in the United
attitudes towards faculty unions and collective bargaining in american and canadian universities 3�3
States than in Canada.3 Previous studies show that the percentage of American
workers who want union representation is several times higher than the union
membership rate. Thus, the US-Canada differences in the overall demand for
union membership are much smaller than the variation in the union density,
and, in some studies, are insignificant. In addition, the large-scale divergence of
union densities in the two countries began only since the 1960s (Bruce, 1989;
Freeman and Rogers, 1999/2006; Lipset et al., 2004; Riddell, 1993; Robinson,
1992, 2006).
Institutional and political factors are also likely to affect faculty unionism in the
US and Canada. Many previous studies linked higher union density in Canada
compared to the US to differences in legal, political, and economic institutions
which frustrate demand of the majority of American workers who want to join
unions. The most important of these factors include legal institutions and the
managerial opposition. There are much greater legal hurdles for unionization,
particularly in the case of faculty unions, in the US compared to Canada, which
has more union-friendly legislation (Bruce, 1989; Riddell, 1993). For example, a
ruling by the Supreme Court in the 1980 case of National Labor Relations Board
v. Yeshiva University basically excluded faculty members in private universities
from collective bargaining (DeCew, 2003).
While American states and Canadian provinces have authority over labour-
related legislation, the power of the federal government in this regard is much
more extensive in the US (Taras, 1997). Because of the differences in the
judicial and party systems, Canadian social-democratic parties, such as the New
Democratic Party and the Parti Québécois, had opportunity to promote labour-
friendly legislation in provinces in which they were in power or represented
strong opposition (Bruce, 1989; Meltz, 1989; Taras, 1997). Labour legislation
and labour-friendly political parties were linked to interstate and interprovincial
variations in the union membership rates. For example, states with right-to-work
laws have generally the lowest union density in the US (Meltz, 1989).
Experience with faculty unions and collective bargaining is also likely to
affect attitudes towards these issues. Several survey-based studies show that the
presence of a certified faculty union had a positive impact on views of faculty
unions and collective bargaining by professors in Canada (Nakhaie and Brym,
1999; Ponak and Thompson, 1984). Some previous studies also identified such
predictors of attitudes towards unionism as institutional quality and institutional
type (Ladd and Lipset, 1973, 1975).
Administrator opposition is likely to affect faculty attitudes towards unionism
and collective bargaining. Several previous studies noted that managerial hostility
to unions is stronger in the US than in Canada (see, for example, Riddell, 1993).
However, some survey-based studies found that the views of managers on this
3�4 relations industrielles /
industrial relations
– 66-3, 2011
issue are similar in both countries, or American managers are even somewhat less
hostile to unions compared to their Canadian counterparts (Lipset et al., 2004;
Taras, 1997).
Previous studies indicated that a number of academic factors, such as academic
discipline, faculty achievement level, and tenure status, are related to faculty
outlooks toward unions in higher education systems in the US and Canada.
Faculty members in the humanities and the social sciences, both in the United
States and Canada, are much more pro-union than their counterparts in the
natural sciences, engineering, and business (Ladd and Lipset, 1973; Nakhaie and
Brym, 1999: 340-341; Ponak and Thompson, 1979). The significant variation in
attitudes towards faculty unions across academic fields is attributed to different
disciplinary subcultures and self-selection of faculty members (Ladd and Lipset,
1973, 1975).
Professional status is also associated with lower levels of support for union-
ization among the American and Canadian professoriate. Survey-based studies
demonstrate that higher achieving faculty and faculty members in top tier uni-
versities and doctoral schools in the US and Canada were significantly less pro-
union compared to their lower achieving counterparts and faculty in lower tier
and non-doctoral schools. Professors with higher levels of achievement and who
teach at higher status universities are perhaps potentially more affected by the
egalitarian positions of unions than their colleagues with lower status (DeCew,
2003: 13-14; Ladd and Lipset, 1973, 1975, 1976; Nakhaie and Brym, 1999;
Ponak and Thompson, 1984). Similarly, some studies suggest that non-tenure
track and tenure-track faculty members in the United States were more sup-
portive of unionization than were tenured faculty (Dobbie and Robinson, 2008;
Elmuti and Kathawala, 1991; Ladd and Lipset, 1973).
Socio-economic factors, such as income, gender, religious background, age,
and race, are reported in previous studies to affect faculty attitudes towards
unionism. Lower paid faculty members in the US and Canada were more likely
than their higher paid counterparts to favor unionization and collective bargaining
(Dworkin and Lee, 1985; Elmuti and Kathawala, 1991; Ladd and Lipset, 1973;
Ponak and Thompson, 1979, 1984). Class background also seems to matter in
the US and Canada. Professors whose fathers were blue-collar workers were
more supportive of faculty collective bargaining (Ladd and Lipset, 1973: 37-38;
Nakhaie and Brym, 1999: 340-341).
There is also evidence indicating that female professors, both in the United
States and Canada, are more supportive of faculty unions and collective
bargaining than their male counterparts (Dworkin and Lee, 1985; Elmuti and
Kathawala, 1991; Nakhaie and Brym, 1999). Women are also more supportive of
welfare state structures and are more liberal in general. They might use equality
attitudes towards faculty unions and collective bargaining in american and canadian universities 3��
protections offered by the unions and the welfare state to overcome historical
discrimination and achieve equal status and equal pay (Inglehart and Norris,
2003; Nakhaie and Brym, 1999).
Catholic faculty members in both countries were more inclined than their
Protestant counterparts to support faculty unionism. Furthermore, Jewish
professors were significantly more pro-union than Catholics in the United States,
but not in Canada (Ladd and Lipset, 1973: 38-39; Nakhaie and Brym, 1999: 340-
341). Age was positively associated with pro-union attitudes among faculty in
the United States, but age turns out not to be a significant predictor of pro-union
inclinations among the Canadian professoriate (Ladd and Lipset, 1973; Nakhaie
and Brym, 1999: 340).
The available systematic evidence providing insights about the academic
cultures north and south of the US-Canadian border relies almost exclusively
on data gathered from faculty members at random samples of institutions in
both countries. Given the relatively cosmopolitan and mobile nature of the
professoriate, and their unique institutional positions, there are reasons to
be cautious in attributing cross national differences between these groups to
“political culture.” Clearly, administrators in these same institutions may hold
quite different interests and outlooks; outlooks that might be attributable to
their different positions. Anecdotal evidence suggests that administrators often
oppose faculty unionization, because they view unions and collective bargaining
as encroaching on their positions and creating adversarial relations on campus
(DeCew, 2003: 66-71).4 Anecdotal evidence, however, is not a reliable foundation
for generalizations, and we specifically examine such differences between faculty
and administrators that stem from their distinct positions. The following analysis
relies on a unique body of survey data that allows us to explore systematically the
outlooks of faculty and administrators on these questions.
Data and Methodology
This study uses data from the 1999 North American Academic Study Survey
(NAAS) to analyze attitudes towards unions and collective bargaining among fac-
ulty and administrators in the United States and Canada. Although this survey was
conducted in 1999-2000, it remains to the best of our knowledge, the newest
national survey of attitudes of faculty and administrators towards faculty unionism
in both the US and Canada. Other surveys are either much older, only include one
of these groups of respondents, examine one country, or are based on a sample of
selected universities or colleges (Dworkin and Lee, 1985; Elmuti and Kathawala,
1991; Ladd and Lipset, 1973, 1975; Monks, 2000; Nakhaie and Brym, 1999; Ng,
1989; Odewahn and Spritzer, 1976; Ponak and Thompson, 1979, 1984; Ponak,
Thompson and Zerbe, 1992; Thompson and Ponak, 1983).
3�6 relations industrielles /
industrial relations
– 66-3, 2011
Because attitudes can change since this survey was conducted in 1999-
2000, this study does not claim to reflect precisely the current views towards
faculty unionism in the United States and Canada. However, the attitudes of
faculty and administrators towards faculty unions and collective bargaining in
the US and Canada were unlikely to undergo a radical transformation since
that time. For example, survey data show that the general pattern of US-Canadian
differences in union approval among the general population remained stable
from 1941 to 2001, with some exceptions that fell within a statistical margin
of error. Many key determinants of attitudes towards unionism among profes-
sionals in the US remained the same since the 1960s (Lipset et al., 2004: 2-3,
118-144).
The Angus Reid (now Ipsos Reid) administered this telephone survey in
both countries in 1999-2000. The US sample was stratified by institution type
according to the Carnegie classifications of Doctoral, Comprehensive, and
Liberal Arts schools. Within each stratum, the schools were randomly selected
from the entire universe of qualified institutions with probability of selection
proportional to size. The survey in the US includes 1644 faculty members and
808 administrators.
The Canadian sample was also stratified by type, and the sample was distributed
across these strata according to their relative share of the Canadian university
student population. Within the strata (i.e. at the school level), the Canadian
sample was distributed proportional to each institution’s population. All schools
from the Doctoral strata (15 of 15), all but one (12 of 13) Comprehensive school,
and 8 out of 24 Liberal Arts schools were included in the Canadian sample.
The sample in Canada includes 1514 faculty members and 280 administrators.
Sixteen percent of the respondents among all Canadian faculty and 65 percent
in Quebec are francophone. Twenty percent of administrators in the Canadian
sample, including 68 percent in Quebec, are native French-speakers.
The 1999 NAAS Survey includes universities and four-year colleges, but it does
not cover community colleges in the US and equivalent institutions in Canada.
This is a limitation of our study because, as noted, in the United States, a much
higher proportion of faculty in community colleges than in liberal arts colleges
and universities are covered by collective bargaining.
The survey includes full-time tenured, tenure-track, and non-tenure track
teaching faculty in both the US and Canada.5 Part-time adjunct faculty in the US
and seasonal instructors in Canada are not included. Part-time faculty members
are difficult to survey, and many of them have non-academic jobs. Although their
numbers have been growing rapidly in both countries, part-time faculty members
have much less influence over key aspects of university work, compared to full-
time professors. As of 2004, part-time faculty members, excluding graduate
attitudes towards faculty unions and collective bargaining in american and canadian universities 3�7
student instructors, represented a minority (about one third) of all faculty in
four-year colleges and universities in the US and Canada. The same applies to
graduate student instructors who were also not covered by this survey (Dobbie
and Robinson, 2008: 123, 126).
Attitudes towards collective bargaining and faculty unionism are measured
using a variety of questions probing such issues as: opposition to collective
bargaining by faculty members in a college or university, the role of collective
bargaining in protecting the interests of the faculty, and the effects of faculty
unions on academic life.
The analysis begins with a bivariate examination of national and positional
differences among faculty and administrators on different questions concerning
faculty unionism and collective bargaining. Because Canadian universities are
public, the controlled comparisons focus on respondents from public American
colleges. The investigation then turns to multivariate analysis to determine
whether the same (or different) factors affect support for collective bargaining
and faculty unionism in both countries. Responses to the collective bargaining in
the faculty interests question and the faculty unionism question are reversed so
that higher values signify pro-union attitudes.
The independent variables measure different cultural, institutional, political,
socio-economic, and academic factors which we expect to affect the attitudes
towards faculty unionism and which were discussed in the previous section.
These variables are selected both for theoretical reasons and because previous
research has shown that they are significant determinants of support for faculty
unions and collective bargaining.6
The political ideology index and the social ideology index quantify cultural
orientations in respect of important political and social issues. These indexes
are derived with the help of a factor analysis of similar types of questions
that were used in several previous survey-based studies of unionism and
had significant effects (Ladd and Lipset, 1973; Lipset and Katchanovski,
2001; Ponak and Thompson, 1979). The political ideology index includes
three questions that measure respondent views on political issues: “The
government should work to ensure that everyone has a job”; “Government
should work to reduce the income gap between rich and poor”; and “More
environmental protection is needed, even if it raises prices or costs jobs”.
Scale reliability coefficient (alpha) is 0.59. The social ideology index includes
the following three items that measure respondents’ views on various social
issues: “Homosexuality is as acceptable a lifestyle as heterosexuality”; “It
is a woman’s right to decide whether or not to have an abortion”; and “It
is alright for a couple to live together without intending to get married”.
Factor analysis produces a single factor solution. Scale reliability coefficient
3�8 relations industrielles /
industrial relations
– 66-3, 2011
(alpha) is 0.78. Higher values of the political and social ideology indexes
mean more liberal beliefs.
The South and Quebec dummy variables are proxies for the most distinct
regional subcultures. Institutional and political factors are quantified with the
help of the following variables: faculty bargaining on campus, union density,
administrators’ opposition, institutional quality, program type, and type of uni-
versity. The faculty bargaining on campus is a dummy variable which denotes a
presence of a faculty union or another bargaining agent, such as a faculty as-
sociation, at each university.7 The union density variable serves as a proxy for the
level of provincial and state institutional support for unionism.8 The administra-
tors’ opposition variable measures the level of opposition to faculty unionism in
each university. It is derived from a factor analysis of administrator responses to
three questions concerning faculty unions and collective bargaining in the 1999
NAAS Survey.
The institutional quality index in the US is based on US News rankings of
universities and colleges. A similar index in Canada is based on the ranking of
universities by Macleans. We modified the US News ranking by placing “national”
universities and colleges in tiers 1 through 4 and all “regional” institutions in
tiers 5-8, and then collapsing eight tiers into four categories. Similarly, Macleans’
rankings are transformed into four tiers. These modified rankings provide
comparable measures of the level of quality of universities and four-year colleges
in the US and Canada. The index is recoded so that a higher score means higher
quality. The institutional quality index ranges from 0 to 1.
Socio-economic factors such as household income, gender, race, immigration
status, religion, and age are included in the multivariate setup, as are academic
factors such as academic discipline, faculty achievement, and tenure status.
Professors from disciplines such as business, architecture, engineering, and
communication comprise a category of “high professionals.” The “low
professionals” field includes faculty in disciplines such as nursing, education,
and social work. The academic achievement index, which is created with the
help of factor analysis, focuses on research productivity of faculty members. It
includes the following questions from the 1999 North American Academic Study
Survey: “Within the past five years, and counting anything now in press, how
many articles, if any, have you published in refereed journals, or as chapters in
academic books?”; “Again, within the past five years, and counting anything
now in press, how many books, if any, have you authored or co-authored?”;
“Have you served on the editorial board of an academic journal?”; “How often,
if at all, do you attend the international meetings of your discipline?”; and “All
things considered, what percentage of your working time would you say you
spend on research?” The reliability coefficient (alpha) of the index is 0.69.
ATTITUDES TOWARDS FACULTY UNIONS AND COLLECTIVE BARGAINING IN AMERICAN AND CANADIAN UNIVERSITIES 359
results
The initial bivariate analysis of the 1999 North American Academic Study Survey
data shows that national differences outweigh differences between faculty and
administrators on the question of importance of collective bargaining to protect
faculty interests. Sixty two percent of American faculty members in public colleges
and universities, compared to 86 percent of Canadian faculty members, agree that
collective bargaining is important to protect the interests of the faculty. Administrators
show the same cross-border pattern even though they express much less support on
this dimension (27 percent in the US and 72 percent in Canada) (see Table 1).
Similarly, Canadian administrators and faculty members turn out to be more
pro-union than their counterparts in public higher education institutions in the
United States on the issue of the effects of faculty unions on academic life. But on
TABLE 1
Attitudes towards Collective Bargaining and Faculty Unions, Percent
US faculty Canadian US administrators Canadian
Public Private faculty Public Private administrators
Collective bargaining is important to protect the interests of the faculty
Strongly agree 28 27 51 7 4 31
Moderately agree 34 34 35 20 18 41
Moderately disagree 25 26 9 32 35 19
Strongly disagree 13 13 5 40 42 9
Total, percent 100 100 100 100 100 100
N 1059 539 1504 546 235 278
Faculty unions have a divisive effect on academic life
Strongly agree 13 14 11 35 35 20
Moderately agree 29 29 24 35 37 37
Moderately disagree 31 34 30 24 23 29
Strongly disagree 27 23 35 7 5 14
Total, percent 100 100 100 100 100 100
N 1003 504 1465 520 226 274
Collective bargaining by faculty members has no place in a college or university
Strongly agree 10 8 6 26 32 8
Moderately agree 15 18 9 27 23 16
Moderately disagree 35 37 26 31 34 34
Strongly disagree 40 37 58 15 12 43
Total, percent 100 100 100 100 100 100
N 1070 539 1504 545 243 280
Source: 1999 NAAS Survey
360 relations industrielles /
industrial relations
– 66-3, 2011
this attitudinal dimension, positional differences are more striking than the cross-
national differences. American and Canadian faculty members (42 and 35 percent
respectively) are much less likely to agree than their administrator co-nationals (70
percent and 57 percent respectively) that faculty unions are divisive (Table 1).
Responses to the direct question concerning opposition to faculty collective
bargaining on campus are more mixed. Twenty five percent of American faculty
members in public universities, compared to 15 percent of Canadian professors, agree
that collective bargaining by faculty members has “no place in a college or university.”
Fifty three percent of administrators in public higher education institutions in the US,
compared to 24 percent of Canadian administrators, express the same view.
The 1999 NAAS Survey shows that the percentage of American faculty
members who were covered by collective bargaining in four-year institutions of
higher education and included in the survey (22 percent) is significantly below the
demand for such bargaining. At least two-fifth of the professors in public schools
and half of the professors in private schools were not able to fulfill their demand
for collective bargaining. In contrast, the proportion of Canadian professors
covered by collective bargaining (88 percent) was close to the percentages of
the faculty respondents saying that collective bargaining has place in a college
or university (84 percent) or that collective bargaining is important to protect the
interests of the faculty (86 percent) (see Table 1).
Multivariate analysis yields more nuanced findings. Clearly, some factors have
similar effects on pro-union attitudes of faculty members in both the US and
Canada, while other factors have different effects in the two countries. Positions on
the political ideology index, which assigns higher values to more liberal ideological
beliefs concerning political economy issues, have a strong positive effect on the
faculty’s attitudes towards both collective bargaining and unionization. The social
ideology index, which focuses on social issues, such as attitudes towards abortion
and homosexuality, is also positively associated with attitudes towards faculty
unions, but its effect is less significant compared to political ideology (Table 2).
Faculty and administrators in the South do not differ significantly from other
US regions in their views on unionism and collective bargaining. In contrast,
professors in Quebec view the effects of faculty unions in a much more positive
way compared to other provinces.
Among institutional and political factors, faculty bargaining on campus,
administrator opposition, and institutional quality are in many cases statistically
significant determinants of faculty attitudes towards unionism and collective
bargaining. For example, the quality of schools in which faculty teach is inversely
related to pro-union support. But there are also US-Canada differences. Presence
of a faculty union or another bargaining agent on campus elicits greater support
ATTITUDES TOWARDS FACULTY UNIONS AND COLLECTIVE BARGAINING IN AMERICAN AND CANADIAN UNIVERSITIES 361
TABLE 2
Determinants of Faculty’s Support for Faculty Unions and Collective Bargaining, OLS Regressions
Place of collective bargaining in universities Collective bargaining in faculty interests Faculty unions effect
US Canada US Canada US Canada
B St. error B St. error B St. error B St. error B St. error B St. error
Cultural factors
Social ideology index .044 .033 .108
*
.043 .017 .032 .076 .041 .102
**
.035 .102
*
.049
Political ideology index .295
***
.034 .187
***
.035 .327
***
.033 .226
***
.034 .254
***
.036 .195
***
.041
South .013 .023 .015 .023 .009 .024
Quebec -.024 .026 -.001 .024 .094
***
.029
Institutional and political factors
Faculty bargaining on campus .089
***
.023 .015 .029 .177
***
.023 .028 .028 .090
***
.024 .022 .034
Union density .002 .002 -.001 .002 .000 .002 -.002 .002 -.001 .002 -.001 .002
Administrator opposition -.166
*
.074 -.346
***
.084 -.042 .073 -.291
***
.081 -.145 .078 -.472
***
.098
Institutional quality .023 .032 .079
**
.030 .066
*
.031 .077
**
.029 -.026 .034 .032 .035
Program type .057 .035 .042 .022 .012 .034 .022 .021 .030 .037 .050 .025
Public -.018 .021 -.021 .021 -.005 .023
Socio-economic factors
Age -.106 .058 -.087 .061 -.154
**
.057 .053 .058 -.165
**
.062 .099 .070
Blue-collar father .022 .021 .024 .021 .033 .021 -.012 .020 .037 .022 .013 .024
Household income -.205
***
.040 -.118
**
.043 -.226
***
.040 -.151
***
.041 -.192
***
.043 -.101
*
.049
Male -.011 .019 -.031 .019 -.026 .018 -.042
*
.018 -.015 .020 -.062
**
.022
Born in the US .013 .027 -.008 .024 -.058
*
.027 -.021 .023 -.027 .029 .009 .028
Continued on next page
362 RELATIONS INDUSTRIELLES /
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS
– 66-3, 2011
TABLE 2 (
continued
)
Place of collective bargaining in universities Collective bargaining in faculty interests Faculty unions effect
US Canada US Canada US Canada
B St. error B St. error B St. error B St. error B St. error B St. error
Born in other country -.025 .019 -.002 .018 -.006 .022
Protestant -.028 .023 .009 .023 -.048
*
.022 .013 .022 -.038 .024 -.053
*
.026
Jewish .095
**
.031 .056 .040 .040 .031 .028 .038 .065 .033 -.057 .046
Other religion .008 .034 .003 .036 .038 .033 -.023 .035 .028 .036 -.068 .042
Non-religious .007 .025 .024 .022 .000 .025 .027 .021 .030 .027 -.030 .025
Black .084
*
.037 -.113 .075 .122
***
.036 -.027 .072 .051 .039 -.215
*
.086
Asian -.085
*
.043 -.049 .035 -.024 .042 .007 .033 -.042 .046 -.041 .040
Other race -.019 .039 .005 .055 .013 .039 -.038 .053 .001 .042 .066 .064
Academic factors
High professionals -.097
***
.026 -.135
***
.025 -.072
**
.026 -.078
***
.024 -.100
***
.028 -.082
**
.029
Low professionals -.031 .029 .005 .031 -.025 .028 -.007 .029 -.076
*
.030 -.005 .035
Humanities .003 .024 .003 .022 .031 .023 .024 .021 -.007 .025 .004 .025
Science -.107
***
.025 -.094
***
.022 -.098
***
.024 -.046
*
.021 -.105
***
.026 -.083
***
.025
Other field -.104
*
.052 -.041 .057 -.104
*
.051 -.083 .054 -.130
*
.055 -.068 .066
Academic achievement index -.029 .031 -.068
*
.029 -.024 .030 -.045 .028 -.054 .033 -.059 .034
Tenure-track .019 .023 -.101
***
.025 .024 .022 -.061
*
.024 -.004 .024 -.042 .029
Non-tenure -.026 .026 -.129
***
.033 -.019 .026 -.077
*
.032 -.032 .028 .004 .038
Constant .609
***
.088 .828
***
.092 .565
***
.087 .735
***
.088 .618
***
.094 .633
***
.106
Adjusted R square .199 .160 .270 .141 .177 .136
N 1453 1356 1453 1356 1407 1356
Note:
*
Significant at the .05 level;
**
significant at the .01 level,
***
significant at the .001 level.
attitudes towards faculty unions and collective bargaining in american and canadian universities 363
for faculty unions and collective bargaining in the United States, but not in
Canada. Conversely, administrator opposition has more consistent effects on
faculty attitudes in Canada than in the US.
Household income is negatively associated with pro-union attitudes. The effects
of other socio-economic variables, such as age, gender, and religion, exhibit cross-
national variation. Age is negatively associated with American professors’ support
for faculty unions and collective bargaining. By contrast, age is a statistically
insignificant determinant of the pro-union attitudes of Canadian professors on
three of the questions concerning faculty unions and collective bargaining.
Female faculty members in Canada are more supportive of collective bargaining
and unions than their male counterparts. Gender is a statistically significant
predictor only in the Canadian sample. Similarly, Jewish faculty members in the
US are more supportive of collective bargaining, while the effect of the Jewish
variable in Canada is statistically insignificant in all cases in the faculty sample.
Protestant professors are less pro-union on the faculty unionism question in
Canada, and they are less likely to express views that collective bargaining is in
the faculty interest in the US. Black professors are more supportive of collective
bargaining in the United States, but not in Canada. In contrast, Black faculty
members are less pro-union in Canada (see Table 2).
Faculty in high professions and sciences are the least supportive of collective
bargaining and unions on campus. These variables are statistically significant on
all three dimensions of the pro-union attitudes in both the United States and
Canada. Academic achievement level is negatively related to support for collec-
tive bargaining in universities in the Canadian faculty sample.
The regression analysis shows that there are no statistically significant
differences in attitudes of tenured and non-tenure track professors towards
faculty unionism and collective bargaining in the US. In contrast, non-tenure
track faculty members in Canada are less supportive of unionism and collective
bargaining compared to their tenured counterparts. Similarly, tenure-track
professors north of the US-Canada border are more negatively disposed towards
faculty unionism and collective bargaining than the tenured faculty (Table 2).
Many of the same variables which have statistically significant effects on faculty
attitudes also tend to predict administrator attitudes toward collective bargaining
and faculty unionism (see Table 3). Clearly, political ideology has a strong positive
effect on the pro-union support This variable is statistically significant in all
instances in both the US and Canada. Social ideology is a statistically significant
determinant of administrator support for collective bargaining in American and
Canadian universities, but in the case of attitudes towards faculty unions, this
variable is a statistically significant predictor only among US administrators.
364 RELATIONS INDUSTRIELLES /
INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS
– 66-3, 2011
TABLE 3
Determinants of Administrators’ Support for Faculty Unions and Collective Bargaining, OLS Regressions
Place of collective bargaining in universities Collective bargaining in faculty interests Faculty unions effect
US Canada US Canada US Canada
B St. error B St. error B St. error B St. error B St. error B St. error
Cultural factors
Social ideology index .116
*
.051 .324
**
.117 -.001 .046 .015 .111 .124
**
.047 .163 .124
Political ideology index .314
***
.053 .293
**
.096 .229
***
.047 .402
***
.091 .214
***
.049 .227
*
.102
South -.059 .034 .036 .030 .042 .031
Quebec -.068 .064 -.007 .060 .104 .068
Institutional and political factors
Faculty bargaining on campus .100
**
.034 .138
*
.063 .166
***
.030 .207
***
.059 .026 .031 .077 .066
Union density .002 .003 -.005 .004 .003 .002 -.004 .004 .002 .003 -.011
**
.004
Institutional quality .061 .046 .161
*
.065 .024 .041 .102 .061 -.013 .042 .132 .068
Program type -.034 .044 -.038 .049 .000 .039 -.050 .046 -.040 .040 .007 .052
Public .032 .029 -.005 .026 .024 .027
Socio-economic factors
Age -.350
***
.101 .162 .195 -.171 .090 .219 .183 -.135 .093 .100 .205
Blue-collar father -.002 .027 -.009 .053 -.010 .024 -.014 .049 .013 .025 .058 .055
Household income -.218
***
.053 -.151 .098 -.276
***
.047 -.206
*
.092 -.272
***
.049 -.113 .103
Male .001 .026 .018 .047 -.031 .023 -.030 .044 -.004 .024 -.087 .049
Born in the US -.042 .051 .014 .056 -.061 .045 -.071 .053 -.076 .047 .029 .059
ATTITUDES TOWARDS FACULTY UNIONS AND COLLECTIVE BARGAINING IN AMERICAN AND CANADIAN UNIVERSITIES 365
Place of collective bargaining in universities Collective bargaining in faculty interests Faculty unions effect
US Canada US Canada US Canada
B St. error B St. error B St. error B St. error B St. error B St. error
Born in other country -.056 .031 .061 .051 .018 .048 .072 .054
Protestant .061 .049 -.030 .057 -.027 .027 -.083 .054 -.071
*
.028 -.044 .060
Jewish .020 .102 .014 .043 .140 .097 .092
*
.045 .009 .108
Other religion .032 .086 -.070 .096 .061 .077 .001 .091 .066 .079 -.023 .102
Non-religious -.039 .040 -.014 .060 -.009 .036 -.011 .056 -.012 .037 -.017 .063
Black .077 .052 .071 .046 -.055 .048
Asian -.101 .116 -.116 .129 .090 .103 .084 .121 -.082 .107 -.101 .136
Other race .194
*
.090 -.027 .158 .114 .080 .077 .149 .094 .083 .284 .166
Academic factors
Held teaching or research position .058
*
.024 .066 .069 -.005 .022 .090 .065 .029 .023 .035 .073
Constant .446
***
.110 .084 .219 .404
***
.098 .204 .206 .374
***
.102 .352 .231
Adjusted R square .179 .132 .188 .204 .144 .072
N 754 .262 745 262 715 262
Note: The Canadian sample does not include any Black administrators.
* Significant at the .05 level; ** significant at the .01 level, *** significant at the .001 level
366 relations industrielles /
industrial relations
– 66-3, 2011
The pattern of the US-Canada differences of faculty and administrator positions
on the political ideology and social ideology is consistent with the political culture
hypothesis. Canadian academics are more liberal than their American counter-
parts. However, the magnitude of the national differences is not very large, and
views of faculty and administrators in both countries tend towards more liberal
orientations concerning political and social issues. The mean score of Canadian
professors on the political ideology index is .75, compared to .69 of American
faculty members. Canadian and American administrators scores are, respectively,
.76 and .67 on this index. Similarly, the faculty (.84) and administrators (.85) in
the United States are more conservative on the social ideology index, compared
to their counterparts in Canada (.92 and .91, respectively).
Presence of faculty union or another bargaining agent on campus is positively
associated with administrator support for collective bargaining in both countries.
Institutional quality also matters when it comes to outlooks towards collective
bargaining in Canada. Administrators at better quality universities are less supportive
of faculty collective bargaining than their counterparts in lower quality schools.
The impact of income is negative in all regressions in the US, while this
factor is statistically significant only in one instance in Canada. In contrast to
the case of faculty, the gender variable is a statistically insignificant predictor of
administrators’ attitudes on all three questions in both the US and Canada. As
with the case of faculty respondents, determinants of pro-union attitude among
administrators differ in many instances in the United States and Canada. For
example, this is the case with socio-economic factors, such as age and Protestant
and Jewish religious preferences. The same applies to administrators who hold
teaching or research appointments (Table 3).
Class background, defined by occupation of the respondent’s father, has
no statistically significant effect on support for faculty unionism and collective
bargaining among professors and administrators in the US and Canada. Similarly,
differences in pro-union attitudes among American faculty members and
administrators in public versus private colleges and universities are not statistically
significant (Tables 2 and 3).
Conclusion
This paper has employed the 1999 North American Academic Study Survey data
to examine the role of cultural, institutional, political, positional, socio-economic,
and academic factors in shaping attitudes of American and Canadian faculty
and administrators towards faculty unions and collective bargaining in four-year
colleges and universities. A major contribution of this study comes from the
directly comparative and cross-national analysis of two matched groups: faculty
members and administrators. With a few exceptions, previous studies of faculty
attitudes towards faculty unions and collective bargaining in american and canadian universities 367
unionism focused on attitudes of professors in either the US or Canada, and they
neglected administrators.
Analysis of the 1999 NAAS Survey results shows that Canadian faculty members
and administrators are more supportive of faculty unions and collective bargaining
than their American counterparts. These results render support to the political
culture hypothesis, which links stronger backing for faculty unions in Canada
compared to the US to differences in values in both countries. Although they are
significant, political culture differences cannot fully explain the large gaps in the
union density and the collective bargaining coverage among faculty members in
the United States and Canada. The national variation in the ideological orientations
is consistent with the political culture theory, but its magnitude is not very large.
This study shows that other factors, particularly institutional, political, and
positional factors, affect support for faculty unionism in the US and Canada.
The presence of a faculty union or another bargaining agent, such as a faculty
association, on campus is positively associated with favourable views of faculty
unions and collective bargaining among American professors and with adminis-
trator support for collective bargaining in both countries. Administrator opposi-
tion is also an important determinant, especially in the case of the attitudes of
Canadian faculty members.
As one would expect, professors in the United States and Canada are more pro-
union than administrators. Some factors, such as political ideology and academic
field, have similar effects on the attitudes of faculty and administrators in both the
US and Canada. By contrast, many other factors, such as gender, religion, region,
race, age, differ in their effects in the United States and Canada. In particular,
female professors in Canada are more supportive of collective bargaining and
unions than their male counterparts, while the gender differences are statistically
insignificant in the United States.
This study suggests that both political culture and institutions are important
determinants of the divergence in faculty union membership rates and the
extent of collective bargaining coverage in American and Canadian universities.
However, the analysis focused on the demand-side aspects of the issue. Supply-
side factors, such as legal and political institutions and administrator hostility,
are major obstacles to faculty unionization and collective bargaining in the US.
However, political culture might also contribute to these institutional reasons for
the current relative weakness of faculty unionism south of the border, because it
is one of the factors responsible for less union-friendly laws, political parties, and
university administrators in the United States compared to Canada.
The 1999 North American Academic Study Survey shows that in spite of weaker
support for faculty unions and collective bargaining among American faculty and
administrators, compared to their Canadian counterparts, there is an untapped
368 relations industrielles /
industrial relations
– 66-3, 2011
potential for the expansion of faculty unionism in the United States. The proportion
of full-time American faculty members who favour unionization greatly exceeds the
union membership rate and the collective bargaining coverage in US universities.
Thus, this analysis found that faculty encounters a similar kind of a representation
gap that was reported by previous studies on unionism in the US.
This study suggests a need for further research of faculty unionism in the United
States and Canada. In particular, it would be beneficial to examine in future surveys
whether attitudes of groups, such as faculty in American community colleges and
similar schools in Canada, and part-time faculty, are similar or distinct from those of
full-time faculty in universities and four-year colleges. The 1999 NAAS Survey did not
include professors at two-year colleges and part-time professors. But they represent
sizable segments of the faculty. Since the union membership rate of community
college faculty in the US far exceeds that of four-year institutions and is closer to the
faculty unionization rate in Canada, such an analysis might shed additional light on
the factors behind the US-Canada differences, in particular, by highlighting factors
that produce such a large variation among these categories of the American faculty.
Notes
1 In addition to the American Federation of Teachers, the American Association of University
Professors and the National Education Association act as collective bargaining agents for
faculty members in many universities and colleges in the US (DeCew, 2003; Hutcheson,
2000). The Canadian Association of University Teachers undertakes similar functions (Savage,
1994). There are many other unions which represent non-tenure track and part-time faculty
and graduate instructors in the US and Canada.
2 There are a handful of denominational institutions offering undergraduate degrees. But 98
percent of all students enrolled in degree granting institutions are in the public system. The
1999 NAAS Survey shows that 12 percent of faculty members in Canada were born in the US,
while 28 percent of Canadian faculty received their highest degree in American universities.
3 A survey of registered nurses in the US and Canada produced a similar pattern of attitudes
towards collective bargaining (Ponak and Haridas, 1979).
4 There is lack of recent survey-based studies of attitudes of administrators towards faculty
unionism and collective bargaining.
5 Full-time non-tenure track faculty comprise 13 percent of the respondents, who specified
their tenure status, in the US sample and 6 percent in the Canadian sample. The fact that the
1999 NAAS Survey included only full-time teaching faculty members and excluded faculty
in research positions can account for the smaller proportions of non-tenure track faculty in
both samples compared to the statistical reports (see, for, example, data reported in Dobbie
and Robinson, 2008: 123, 126).
6 The dependent and independent variables are recoded to range from 0 to 1 to express them
in the same unit of measurement and to compare strength of their effects. An appendix with
descriptions of the variables is available upon request to the authors.
7 This variable is derived from data reported in Hurd, Foerster and Johnson (1996).
8 The 1999 union density data are obtained from Akyeampong (2000) and Hirsch, Macpherson
and Vroman (2001).
attitudes towards faculty unions and collective bargaining in american and canadian universities 369
References
Adams, Michael. 2004. Fire and Ice: The United States, Canada and the Myth of Converging
Values. Toronto: Penguin Canada.
Akyeampong, Ernest B. 1999. “Unionization: An Update.” Perspectives on Labour and Income,
11 (Autumn), 45-65.
Akyeampong, Ernest B. 2000. “Non-unionized but Covered by Collective Agreement.”
Perspectives on Labour and Income, 3 (Autumn), 33-59.
Alston, Jon P., Theresa M. Morris, and Arnold Vedlitz. 1996. “Comparing Canadian and American
Values: New Evidence from National Surveys.” The American Review of Canadian Studies/
The Canadian Review of American Studies, 26 (Autumn), 301-314.
Benjamin, Ernst. 2006. “Faculty Bargaining.” Academic Collective Bargaining. E. Benjamin and
M. Mauer, eds. Washington: AAUP, 23-51.
Bruce, Peter. 1989. “Political Parties and Labor Legislation in Canada and the United States.”
Industrial Relations, 28 (2), 115-141.
DeCew, Judith Wagner. 2003. Unionization in the Academy: Visions and Realities. Lanham:
Rowman & Littlefield.
Dobbie, David and Ian Robinson. 2008. “Reorganizing Higher Education in the United States
and Canada.” Labor Studies Journal, 33 (2), 117-140.
Dworkin, James B. and Do-Hwa Lee. 1985. “Faculty Intentions to Unionize: Theory and
Evidence.” Research in Higher Education, 23 (4), 375-385.
Elmuti, Dean and Yunus Kathawala. 1991. “Full Time University Faculty Members’ Perceptions
of Unionization Impact on Overall Compensation Dimensions.” Journal of Research and
Development in Education, 24 (2), 9-15.
Freeman, Richard B. and Joel Rogers. 1999/2006. What Workers Want. Updated edition. Ithaca:
Cornell University Press.
Hirsch, Barry T., David A. Macpherson, and Wayne G. Vroman. 2001. “Estimates of Union
Density by State.” Monthly Labor Review, 124 (7), 51-55.
Hurd, Richard, Amy Foerster and Beth Hillman Johnson. 1996. Directory of Faculty Contracts and
Bargaining Agents in Institutions of Higher Education. Vol. 22. New York: NCSCBHEP.
Hutcheson, Philo A. 2000. A Professional Professoriate: Unionization, Bureaucratization, and the
AAUP. Nashville: Vanderbilt University Press.
Inglehart, Ronald and Pippa Norris. 2003. Rising Tide: Gender Equality and Cultural Change
around the World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Inglehart, Ronald F., Neil Nevitte, and Miguel Basanez. 1996. The North American Trajectory:
Cultural, Economic, and Political Ties Among the United States, Canada, and Mexico. New
York: Aldine De Gruyter.
Ladd, Everett Carl and Seymour Martin Lipset. 1973. Professors, Unions, and American Higher
Education. Berkeley: Carnegie Foundation.
Ladd, Everett Carl and Seymour Martin Lipset. 1975. Divided Academy: Professors and Politics.
New York: McGraw-Hill.
Ladd, Everett Carl and Seymour Martin Lipset. 1976. “How Faculty Unions Rate with Professors.”
Chronicle of Higher Education, February 9.
370 relations industrielles /
industrial relations
– 66-3, 2011
Lipset, Seymour Martin. 1986. “North American Labor Movements: A Comparative Perspective.”
Unions in Transition. Seymour Martin Lipset, ed. San Francisco: ICS Press, 421-452.
Lipset, Seymour Martin. 1990. Continental Divide: The Values and Institutions of the United
States and Canada. New York: Routledge.
Lipset, Seymour Martin. 1996. American Exceptionalism: A Double-Edged Sword. New York:
W.W. Norton.
Lipset, Seymour Martin and Gary Marks. 2001. It Didn’t Happen Here: Why Socialism Failed in
the United States. New York: W.W. Norton.
Lipset, Seymour Martin and Ivan Katchanovski. 2001. “Future of Private-Sector Unions in the
United States.” Journal of Labor Research, 22 (2), 229-244.
Lipset, Seymour Martin, Noah Meltz, Rafael Gomez and Ivan Katchanovski. 2004. Paradox of
American and Canadian Unionism: Why Americans Like Unions More than Canadians do,
but Join Much Less. Ithaca: Cornell University Press.
Meltz, Noah M. 1989. “Interstate vs. Interprovincial Differences in Union Density.” Industrial
Relations, 28 (2), 142-158.
Monks, James. 2000. “Unionization and Faculty Salaries: New Evidence from the 1990s.”
Journal of Labor Research, 21 (2), 305-314.
Nakhaie, Reza and Robert J. Brym. 1999. “The Political Attitudes of Canadian Professors.”
Canadian Journal of Sociology, 24 (3), 329-353.
Nevitte, Neil. 1996. The Decline of Deference: Canadian Value Change in Cross National
Perspective. Peterborough: Broadview Press.
Ng, Ignace. 1989. “Determinants of Union Commitment among University Faculty.” Relations
Industrielles/Industrial Relations, 44 (4), 769-784.
Odewahn, Charles A. and Allan D. Spritzer. 1976. “Administrators’ Attitudes toward Faculty
Unionism.” Industrial Relations, 15 (2), 206-215.
Ponak, Allen and T. P. Haridas. 1979. “Collective Bargaining Attitudes of Registered Nurses in
the United States and Canada: A Wisconsin-Ontario Comparison.” Relations Industrielles/
Industrial Relations, 34 (3), 576-591.
Ponak, Allen M. and Mark Thompson. 1979. “Faculty Attitudes and the Scope of Bargaining.”
Industrial Relations, 18 (1), 97-102.
Ponak, Allen and Mark Thompson. 1984. “Faculty Collective Bargaining: The Voice of
Experience.” Relations Industrielles/Industrial Relations, 39 (3), 449-465.
Ponak, Allen, Mark Thompson and Wilfred Zerbe. 1992. “Collective Bargaining Goals of
University Faculty.” Research in Higher Education, 33 (4), 415-431.
Riddell, Craig. 1993. “Unionization in Canada and the United States: A Tale of Two Countries.”
Small Differences that Matter: Labor Markets and Income Maintenance in Canada and the
United States. D. Card and R. Freeman, eds. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 109-147.
Robinson, Ian. 1992. “Organizing Labour: The Moral Economy of Canadian-American Density
Divergence, 1963-1986.” Working Paper QPIR 1992-2. School of Industrial Relations,
Queen’s University.
Robinson, Ian. 2006. “Political Culture, Labor Movement Power, Religion, and Public Policy
in Canada and the United States: Vive la Différence?” Contemporary Sociology, 35 (3),
237-242.
attitudes towards faculty unions and collective bargaining in american and canadian universities 371
Savage, Donald C. 1994. “How and Why the CAUT Became Involved in Collective Bargaining.”
Interchange, 25 (1), 55-63.
Taras, Daphne Gottlieb. 1997. “Collective Bargaining Regulation in Canada and the United
States: Divergent Cultures, Divergent Outcomes.” Government Regulation of the Employment
Relationship. Bruce E. Kaufman, ed. Madison: Industrial Relations Research Association,
295-341.
Thompson, Mark and Allen Ponak. 1983. “Faculty Perceptions of Decision-making Influence and
Support for Collective Bargaining.” Proceedings of the Thirty-Sixth Annual Meeting. Barbara
D. Dennis, ed. Madison: Industrial Relations Research Association, 337-344.
White, John Kenneth. 2003. Values Divide: American Politics and Culture in Transition. New
York: Chatham House.
summary
Attitudes towards Faculty Unions and Collective Bargaining
in American and Canadian Universities
This study analyzes attitudes towards faculty unions and collective bargaining
among faculty and administrators in the United States and Canada. This is the
first study which compares support for unionization and collective bargaining in
American and Canadian universities among faculty members and administrators.
The main research question is: Which factors are the determinants of attitudes
towards faculty unions and collective bargaining in American and Canadian
universities and colleges?
Our hypotheses are that cultural, institutional, political, positional, socio-economic,
and academic factors are significant predictors of support for faculty unionization.
The academics in Canada are likely to be more supportive of faculty unionism
compared to their American counterparts because of differences in national political
cultures. Institutional and political factors are also likely to affect such views. This
study uses comparative and regression analyses of data from the 1999 North
American Academic Study Survey to examine attitudes towards unions and collective
bargaining among faculty and administrators in the United States and Canada.
The analysis shows that Canadian academics are more supportive of faculty unions
and collective bargaining than their American counterparts. These results provide
support to the political culture hypothesis. However, the study shows that institu-
tional, political, positional, socio-economic and academic factors are also important
in many cases. A faculty bargaining agent on campus is positively associated with
favorable views of faculty unions and collective bargaining among American profes-
sors and with administrators’ support for collective bargaining in both countries.
Administrators’ opposition is also important, in particular, for attitudes of Canadian
faculty. Professors are more pro-union than administrators in both countries. Income,
gender, race, age, religion, and academic field, are significant determinants of
attitudes of faculty and administrators in the US and Canada in certain cases.
KEYWORDS: faculty, unions, political culture, US, Canada
372 relations industrielles /
industrial relations
– 66-3, 2011
rÉsumÉ
Opinions à l’égard des syndicats d’enseignants
et de la négociation collective au sein des universités
américaines et canadiennes
La présente étude porte sur l’opinion des membres des corps enseignants et des
administrateurs à l’égard des syndicats d’enseignants et de la négociation collective
au sein des universités américaines et canadiennes. Il s’agit de la première étude
qui compare le soutien manifesté par les membres des corps enseignants et les
administrateurs quant à la syndicalisation et la négociation collective dans les
universités américaines et canadiennes. La principale question de recherche est la
suivante : quels sont les facteurs déterminants des opinions à l’égard des syndicats
d’enseignants et de la négociation collective au sein des universités et des collèges
américains et canadiens?
Notre hypothèse est que les facteurs culturels, institutionnels, politiques, position-
nels, socioéconomiques et scolaires sont d’importants indices permettant de mesu-
rer l’appui apporté à la syndicalisation des corps d’enseignants. Les universitaires
canadiens sont plus susceptibles d’être en faveur de la syndicalisation des ensei-
gnants comparativement à leurs homologues américains, en raison des différen-
ces entre les deux cultures politiques. Les facteurs institutionnels et politiques ont
aussi probablement une incidence sur les opinions. L’étude comprend des analyses
comparatives et de régression des données provenant du 1999 North American
Academic Study Survey. Ces analyses portent sur l’opinion des membres des corps
enseignants et des administrateurs américains et canadiens à l’égard des syndicats
et de la négociation collective.
Elles démontrent que les universitaires canadiens appuient davantage les syndicats
d’enseignants et la négociation collective que leurs homologues américains.
De plus, les résultats confirment l’hypothèse émise sur la culture politique. Par
contre, l’étude démontre que les facteurs institutionnels, politiques, positionnels,
socioéconomiques et scolaires sont également importants dans de nombreux cas.
La présence, sur le campus, d’un agent négociateur pour les corps enseignants
est associée à des opinions favorables à l’égard des syndicats d’enseignants et de
la négociation collective parmi les enseignants américains ainsi qu’à un soutien
actif de la part des administrateurs à l’égard de la négociation collective, et ce,
dans les deux pays. L’opposition des administrateurs est également importante,
principalement au Canada, puisqu’elle a une incidence sur l’opinion des membres
des corps enseignants. Dans les deux pays, les enseignants sont en général
davantage en faveur des syndicats que les administrateurs. Dans certains cas, le
revenu, le sexe, l’ethnie, l’âge, la religion et la discipline sont d’autres facteurs
déterminants de l’opinion des enseignants et des administrateurs, tant aux États-
Unis qu’au Canada.
MOTS CLÉS : enseignants, syndicats, culture politique, États-Unis, Canada
attitudes towards faculty unions and collective bargaining in american and canadian universities 373
resumeN
Las actitudes hacia los sindicatos universitarios
y hacia las negociaciones colectivas en las universidades
estadounidenses y canadienses
El presente estudio analiza las actitudes de administradores y facultades hacia
los sindicatos universitarios y las negociaciones colectivas, en los Estados Unidos
y el Canadá. Este es el primer estudio que compara, el apoyo a la sindicalización
y a las negociaciones colectivas en el seno de las universidades estadounidenses
y canadienses, entre administradores y la membresía de las facultades. La
problemática principal es: ¿Qué factores son determinantes en las actitudes hacia
los sindicatos universitarios y las negociaciones colectivas, en las universidades y
centros de enseñanza superior de Estados Unidos y el Canadá?
Nuestras hipótesis son las siguientes: Los factores culturales, institucionales, políticos,
posicionales, socio-económicos y académicos son indicadores significativos del apoyo
a la sindicalización universitaria. Los académicos canadienses, comparados con sus
pares estadounidenses, son más propensos a apoyar el sindicalismo universitario,
debido a las diferencias existentes entre las dos culturas políticas nacionales.
Factores institucionales y políticos pueden también incidir en esos puntos de vista.
Este estudio utiliza el análisis de datos comparativos y regresivos de la Encuesta de
los estudios académicos en América del Norte, de 1999, para examinar las actitudes
hacia los sindicatos y negociaciones colectivas entre facultades y administradores
en los Estados Unidos y el Canadá.
El análisis muestra que los académicos canadienses suelen apoyar más los sindicatos
universitarios y las negociaciones colectivas que sus pares estadounidenses. Estos
resultados contribuyen a sostener la hipótesis de la cultura política. No obstante, el
estudio muestra que los factores institucionales, políticos, posicionales, socioeco-
nómicos y académicos son también importantes en muchos casos. Un agente de
negociación universitario es generalmente positivamente asociado en el campus
con una visión favorable sobre los sindicatos universitarios y la negociación colec-
tiva, entre los profesores estadounidenses, y con el apoyo de los administradores a
las negociaciones colectivas, en ambos países. La oposición de los administradores
es también importante, en particular, en las actitudes de las facultades canadien-
ses. En ambos países los profesores son más favorables a los sindicatos que los ad-
ministradores. En ciertos casos, los ingresos monetarios, el género, la raza, la edad,
la religión y el campo académico son factores determinantes significativos de las
actitudes de las facultades y de los administradores en los EE.UU. y el Canadá.
PALABRAS CLAVES: facultad, sindicatos, cultura política, EE.UU., Canadá
