Content uploaded by Larry Savage
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Larry Savage on Mar 11, 2019
Content may be subject to copyright.
Assessing Faculty Attitudes toward
Faculty Unions: A Survey of Four
Primarily Undergraduate Universities
Jonah Butovsky, Larry Savage, and Michelle Webber
This study examines the views of full-time unionized university faculty at four primarily undergraduate
universities in Ontario, Canada, on a broad range of issues related to postsecondary education, faculty
associations, and the labor movement. The purpose of the study is twofold: first, to better understand the
views of unionized professors regarding the role and effectiveness of their faculty unions and of labor unions
more generally, and second to explore what impact such views might have on shaping the strategic
orientation and political priorities of faculty associations in a context of unprecedented austerity measures and
neoliberal restructuring in Ontario’s postsecondary education sector. Based on the findings of a mixed-
methods survey, we found that university professors were relatively satisfied union members with a healthy
degree of union—as opposed to class—consciousness, but had little appetite for engaging in political activities
beyond the narrow scope of postsecondary education. This finding, we argue, reinforces the false division
between the “economic” and the “political” in the realm of labor strategy, thus potentially undermining the
capacity of unionized faculty associations to effectively resist neoliberal restructuring both on campus and in
society more broadly.
Introduction
Higher education in Canada, as in most advanced capitalist democracies, is
undergoing profound neoliberal restructuring. The neoliberal university, several
decades in the making, is characterized by the growth of precarious and contin-
gent academic workforces, the intensification of work (including the introduc-
tion of onerous regimes of accountability governance1), a focus on more
revenue-generating academic programs and corporate–university linkages, the
“professionalization” of senior academic administrators, contracting out, higher
tuition fees, and greater student debt loads (Clawson and Page 2011; Cote and
Allahar 2011; Ginsberg 2011; Nelson 2010). This process is embedded in a
much larger neoliberal policy context in which income inequality is growing and
financial capital continues to guide the political priorities of state actors (Harvey
2007).
bs_bs_banner
WorkingUSA: The Journal of Labor and Society · 1089-7011 · Volume 18 · June 2015 · pp. 247–265
© 2015 Immanuel Ness and Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
Because the postsecondary sector is one of the most densely unionized in
Canada (Dobbie and Robinson 2008), unions representing workers in higher
education are central to struggles concerning the defense of public services, the
quality of education, and the protection and the expansion of secure jobs in
universities. Yet the different class positions and increasing internal stratification
of university workers have prompted different groups of employees to defend
their interests in different ways (Berry 2005). The focus of this study is on
full-time faculty members, a small yet understudied group2who occupy some of
the most privileged positions in universities and whose commitment to unionism
and broader notions of solidarity is often in question.3
Given the central role played by full-time, unionized, university professors
in both resisting and reinforcing the neoliberal university, we sought to better
understand their views regarding the utility and purpose of their faculty unions,
and to explore what impact such views might have on shaping the strategic
orientation and political priorities of these faculty unions amid unprecedented
austerity measures and neoliberal restructuring in Ontario’s postsecondary
sector.
As a case study, we focus on faculty associations at Brock University, Trent
University, Nipissing University, and Lakehead University. We surveyed faculty
at these particular universities because, while they are geographically dispersed,
they are all primarily undergraduate, public, and unionized institutions with
relatively similar faculty complements. We decided to focus on primarily under-
graduate universities because, unlike research-intensive universities, they are
often overlooked in the literature, and the number of unionized faculty members
in primarily undergraduate universities in Ontario far exceeds union ranks in the
province’s research-intensive universities. Ontario is an ideal site for a case study
because, in addition to being Canada’s largest province, it represents a central
theater for union struggle. Moreover, according to Newstadt (2008), “the trans-
formation of Ontario’s post-secondary [sector] parallels so closely the trajectory
of neoliberalism that it is a tremendously insightful and in many ways paradig-
matic example of state restructuring.”
The survey findings, in short, demonstrated that professors at Brock, Trent,
Nipissing, and Lakehead universities were relatively satisfied union members
with a healthy degree of union—as opposed to class—consciousness. The find-
ings also revealed that respondents had little appetite for engaging in political
activities beyond the narrow scope of postsecondary education. This finding, we
argue, reinforces the false division between the “economic” and the “political” in
the realm of labor strategy, thus potentially undermining the capacity of union-
ized faculty associations to effectively resist neoliberal restructuring both on
campus and, certainly, in society more broadly.
The Political Economy of Higher Education in Ontario
In the 1960s, the Ontario provincial government invested in a massive
expansion of postsecondary education, leading to the establishment of several
248 WORKINGUSA: THE JOURNAL OF LABOR AND SOCIETY
new, primarily undergraduate, universities, including Brock University and
Trent University, both established in 1964. By the mid-1970s, however, the
neoliberal university was beginning to take shape, as the era of university expan-
sion was replaced by a period of contraction, prompting professors at a number
of universities to transform their faculty associations into bona fide unions in an
effort to better protect the interests of faculty members (Axelrod 2008; Rastin
2000).4
This first wave of faculty unionization was followed by a second, smaller,
wave in the 1980s. This era of neoliberal restructuring unfolded unevenly across
the country, but was characterized in general terms by employers’ more aggres-
sive stance in collective bargaining, job cuts, contracting out and privatization,
restrictions on the right to strike, growing use of back-to-work legislation, and
the introduction of continental free trade (Axelrod 2008; Panitch and Swartz
2003; Rastin 2000).5Newstadt (2008) argues that the neoliberal university began
to take on more “definitive dimensions” in the 1980s and 1990s, “not because
fiscal restraint had ‘hardened,’ but because what amounted to a form of struc-
tural adjustment, drew increasing support from university administrators, an
ever larger portion of the professoriate, and a good number of students as well.”
While university professors undoubtedly played no small role in producing and
reproducing the neoliberal university, they also simultaneously sought to defend
their immediate employment interests through unionization.6
The Great Recession, which battered the global economy in the aftermath
of the 2008 financial crisis, hit the province of Ontario particularly hard,
leading the provincial Liberal government to impose austerity measures on
public sector institutions, including universities, as a way of mitigating budget-
ary shortfalls and disciplining public sector workers. Ontario already had the
lowest per-student funding in the university sector in Canada since the early
1990s (Canadian Association of University Teachers [CAUT] 2012), and in
2010 funding to Ontario universities was 24 percent below the national average
(CAUT 2011). In an effort to cope with the funding situation, many of the
province’s universities decided to more aggressively pursue partnerships and
fund-raising initiatives with the corporate sector, sought to increase student
enrollment, and instituted hiring freezes, or increased the proportion of
courses taught by cheaper, part-time contingent faculty. A number of Ontario
universities, including Brock, also sought to reduce expenditures through
program reviews and prioritization exercises designed to bolster profit-
generating units at the expense of non-revenue-generating departments. Para-
doxically, a new layer of university managers was hired to respond to these
budgetary pressures.
In 2010, the Liberal government directed public and para-public sector
employers to negotiate two-year wage freezes with unionized employees. The
directive, however, was undermined when an arbitrator ruled that the provincial
government had no authority to impose wage freezes without legislating them.
Worried about dealing with the political fallout of legislating wage freezes, the
provincial government established the Commission on the Reform of Ontario’s
Butovsky et al.: Faculty Attitudes toward Faculty Unions 249
Public Services in March 2011 in order to recommend ways of reducing
spending and eliminating the mounting provincial deficit. The establishment of
the Commission, headed by former TD Bank Chief Economist Donald
Drummond, was widely viewed as an attempt to provide the governing Liberals
with the political cover needed to implement a public sector austerity agenda
(Cohn 2012). Unsurprisingly, the final report of the Commission called for
massive cuts in public spending and public services. According to an analysis by
the Ontario Confederation of University Faculty Associations (OCUFA),
“Drummond’s model of labor relations consists primarily of hard bargaining on
the part of broader public sector (BPS) employers, with government . . . sup-
porting the employer when the going gets tough” (OCUFA 2012, 3). The
analysis continued by observing that Drummond “is counting on the devastating
size of his cuts to the funding of public services to force the parties to bargain
concessionary agreements, eliminate jobs, and find ‘efficiencies,’ which obvi-
ously can only translate into dramatically higher workloads for the remaining
public sector workers” (OCUFA 2012, 3).
With the Commission’s findings in hand, the provincial government wasted
no time implementing a program of public sector austerity. In the fall of 2012,
the governing Liberals passed a law allowing the provincial government to
override locally negotiated agreements with elementary and high school educa-
tional workers if the terms of the agreements did not match provincial policy
mandates. The provincial government’s decision to use the new law to unilat-
erally implement a wage freeze, unpaid days off, and claw back sick days was
fiercely resisted by a number of teachers’ unions, spurring work-to-rule cam-
paigns and a number of constitutional challenges. Similar government legisla-
tion was drafted to include all public and para-public sector workers in Ontario,
but was delayed when the government prorogued the legislature in October
2012.
Within this context of mounting government austerity, we launched our
faculty survey. Using both quantitative and qualitative questions, the survey
explored the state of higher education, the work of faculty, and the changing
conditions of faculty work. We also explored respondents’ thoughts on the role
of faculty associations as political actors and their perceptions concerning the
effectiveness of their own associations. Additionally, we asked questions about
respondents’ views on labor unions more generally. Our findings demonstrate
that, on the whole, the faculty members surveyed are quite satisfied with their
unions’ ability to negotiate higher salaries, defend academic freedom, and pre-
serve collegial governance in the university. We also found that most members
are content for their union to be active on issues within their university or, at
most, within higher education more broadly. Only a small minority see their
union as a conduit for broader political engagement, and an equally small
minority see no political role whatsoever for faculty unions. Similarly, a minority
of faculty members see their interests in line with other unionized groups on
campus, suggesting that there are important barriers to building solidarity and
engaging in meaningful and sustained collective action with adjuncts, teaching
250 WORKINGUSA: THE JOURNAL OF LABOR AND SOCIETY
assistants, and other university workers. One of the clear themes derived from
the survey results is the notion that faculty increasingly see their unions as
playing a central and positive role in defending their professional status,
autonomy, and material privileges. Thus, we argue that the professors surveyed
share a strong union, rather than class, consciousness. In the sections that follow,
we dive deeper into the details of these findings and consider their implications
for faculty associations who continue to struggle against growing austerity in
Ontario universities.
Methods
Between June and October of 2012, our mixed-methods surveys were dis-
tributed to all full-time faculty members at Brock, Lakehead, Nipissing, and
Trent universities.
Despite the inherent limitations or survey-based research,7we managed to
obtain acceptable response rates and reliable university-level samples across a
range of variables. After eliminating the names of people who had retired, moved
to another university, or were in fact administrators, the university-level
response rate varied from 27 percent for Nipissing and Trent, 28 percent at
Lakehead, and 41 percent at Brock. Our response rates are within the range
typically found with surveys of university professors (Goldey et al. 2010;
Nakhaie and Brym 2011). To gauge the reliability of our university-level
samples, we compared the characteristics of our sample with the characteristics
of the institutions as a whole. We found no significant differences between our
sample and the entire faculty regarding rank, age, and gender. We also compared
the early respondents in each university-level sample (first quarter to last
quarter) and discovered there were no significant differences between those two
groups. For these reasons, we can infer that those who did not reply are not
substantially different from those who responded.
Using an online survey program, we posed 71 questions, a number of which
were open-ended. In addition to questions about faculty work, faculty unions,
and organized labor more generally, we asked a range of demographic questions
to determine whether there were significant variations in the membership based
on gender, age, rank, and so forth. We pretested the survey instrument on a
number of faculty members to give us confidence in the validity of our measures
and interviewed these faculty members after they took the survey to ensure they
interpreted our questions in the way we intended them. The analysis that follows
is based primarily on the responses to survey items that do not differ by location
in a statistically significant way. After excluding those variables in which we saw
statistically significant variation, we were left with 39 out of 65 variables. This
suggests to us that, broadly speaking, the views of faculty members at the four
universities we selected are similar. Clearly, the reasons why the responses from
participants vary from university to university are important; however, that
analysis is not undertaken here.
Butovsky et al.: Faculty Attitudes toward Faculty Unions 251
Based on the literature on faculty unions in Canada and the broader litera-
ture on unions and professional occupations, we developed the following
straightforward research hypotheses. The conceptualization of each hypothesis
is also included in brackets.
Hypothesis 1: Faculty members are satisfied with their union.
(Multidimensional measure of satisfaction)
Hypothesis 2: Faculty members are generally pro-union.
(Multidimensional measure of attitudes toward unions)
Hypothesis 3: Faculty members are not interested in expanding their links with the
labor movement and progressive political parties.
(Graded scheme of involvement)
Descriptive Statistics
According to the survey results, faculty members are broadly supportive of
the work of their faculty unions, and in fact survey respondents indicated a
high level of support for unions in general, at least in the abstract (Tables 1, 2).
A majority of respondents indicated they find their union effective at protect-
ing professional standards of academe (60 percent say they are “very effective”
or “somewhat effective) and collegial self-governance (67 percent say they
Table 1. Pro-Labor Sentiment
I am proud
to be a union
member (%)
The labor movement
is a positive social
force (%)
Faculty would be
better off without
a union (%)
Labor unions
have too much
power (%)
Strongly agree 29.2 27.4 1.1 5.5
Agree 30.2 46.8 2.1 13.3
Neutral 30.7 21.1 10.6 29.0
Disagree 7.7 3.9 37.5 31.1
Strongly disagree 2.3 .8 48.8 21.1
Table 2. Satisfaction with Faculty Association
Defending
academic
freedom (%)
Negotiating improved
salaries and
benefits (%)
Upholding
professional standards
of academe (%)
Protecting collegial
governance (%)
Very effective 28.2 54.1 12.7 15.4
Somewhat effective 47.9 36.9 47.3 52.0
Neither effective
nor ineffective
16.8 4.9 19.4 18.2
Not very effective 3.9 2.8 11.4 10.8
Not effective at all 3.2 1.3 9.2 3.7
252 WORKINGUSA: THE JOURNAL OF LABOR AND SOCIETY
are “very effective” or “somewhat effective). An even stronger majority
approved of their unions’ work in defending academic freedom (71 percent
said they are “very effective” or “somewhat effective”) and negotiating
improved salaries and benefits (91 percent said their union was “very effective”
or “somewhat effective”). The majority (65 percent) also agreed or strongly
agreed that labor unions are a positive social force and disagreed (52 percent)
that unions have too much power in the society (with 29 percent responding
that they were “neutral” on this question). Only 5 percent of the respondents
disagreed with the statement that “[t]he labour movement is a positive social
force.”
This level of pro-union sentiment is much higher than in Canadian society
overall. In a major survey of the Canadian electorate in 2011, respondents were
asked: “How much confidence do you have in unions?” Six percent answered “a
great deal,” and 31 percent said “quite a lot,” while 46 percent responded “not
very much” and another 18 percent answered “none” (Fournier et al. 2011).
Among union members, support increases to 11 percent “a great deal,” 45
percent “quite a lot,” 36 percent “not very much,” and 8 percent “none at all”
(p <.000), but appears somewhat lower than among the faculty members we
surveyed.
Faculty members surveyed identified themselves overwhelmingly as being
on the “left” on economic issues and as “liberal” on social issues (Table 3).8
Seventy-eight percent of respondents placed themselves as “very left” or “left”
on economic issues and another 11 percent identified as “neutral,” only 8
percent of the respondents placed themselves on the “right.” The results were
even more one-sided when respondents were asked about social issues. Fully 95
percent rated themselves as “liberal” on social issues.
Looking once again to the Canadian election study to contextualize our data,
it appears that the university faculty we surveyed were slightly to the left of the
general public. The 2011 Canadian election study asked respondents where they
scored themselves from 0 to 10 on the left right spectrum (with 0 being furthest
to the left and 10 being furthest to the right). The CES did not separate social
from economic issues. The average score for the general public was 5.04 or
virtually dead-center. The average score for union members was 4.69, just to the
left of the overall population.9
While respondents indicated clear support for unions, that support was
certainly qualified in several important ways, indicating a not insignificant level
Table 3. Position on Political Spectrum (Economic and Social Issues)
Economic issues (%) Social issues (%)
Very liberal 22.1 56.2
Liberal 55.4 38.4
Neutral 14.7 3.4
Conservative 6.9 1.5
Very conservative 1.0 .5
Butovsky et al.: Faculty Attitudes toward Faculty Unions 253
of sectionalism among the professoriate. For example, when asked about the
degree to which the faculty association should cooperate with other unions on
campus or support a pro-union agenda in the broader political sphere, we found
a distinct reduction in enthusiasm. Only 47 percent of the respondents
agreed with the statement: “I identify my employment interests with other
unionized groups on campus.” Looking at Figure 1, we see that the median
member wants to see his/her union involved in relevant issues within the uni-
versity and to lobby the government on postsecondary issues. However, less than
a quarter of faculty union members believe their union should engage in political
activism on a range of social and economic issues.
By way of comparison, we know from a 2011 survey of members of the
Public Service Alliance of Canada (PSAC) that unionized white-collar govern-
ment workers are more invested in the labor movement and see a broader
political function for their union than the faculty members that we surveyed. For
instance, in that survey, 57 percent of PSAC members responded that it was
“important” or “very important” that their union “engage in political action,” 66
percent thought that it was “important” or “very important” to work to “elect
labour-friendly politicians,” and 74 percent felt their union should work at
“building alliances with other unions and like-minded organizations”
(Environics 2011).
Professional Identity
We suspect that faculty members might be reticent to stand beside other
university workers and the broader labor movement because of their strong
attachment to a profession/occupation, rather than class-based, identity. Our
data (Table 4) show that the overwhelming majority of respondents identify as
professionals. Sixty-four percent strongly agree and another 25 percent agree
with this statement. However, only 7 percent of the respondents agreed or
strongly agreed with the statement “unions and academics don’t mix.” A strong
majority of respondents disagreed (45 percent disagreed and another 25 percent
strongly disagreed), thus dealing a blow to the historically popular notion that
unionization is incompatible with professionalism (Crain 2004; Hurd 2000;
Schlachter 1976).
5.60%
49.10%
18.50%
8.50%
0.00% 10.00% 20.00% 30.00% 40.00% 50.00% 60.00%
1
2
3
4
5No acvism whatsover
Government
lobbying on post-
secondary issues
Polical acvism on a wide-range of social and economic issues
Wide-ranging polical acvism plus formal parsan networks with progressive pares
Acvism limited to internal university issues
18.30%
Figure 1. Role of the Faculty Association in Political Activism.
254 WORKINGUSA: THE JOURNAL OF LABOR AND SOCIETY
Overall, professional identity among faculty members does not seem to
detract from union consciousness. In fact, Table 5 demonstrates that faculty
members who strongly identify as professionals are also the most likely to
indicate that they are proud to be union members. That said, union pride among
academics should not be overstated. While 59 percent of academics in our survey
agreed or strongly agreed with the statement “I am proud to be a union
member,” members of the PSAC were much more likely to report that they are
proud to be union members (84 percent of PSAC workers are “very proud” or
“somewhat proud” to be union members) (Environics 2011). One implication
that can be drawn from this data is that professors tend to strongly prefer their
unions to labor unions in general.
Reconciling unionization and professionalism has not, however, turned
faculty associations into militant or class-conscious organizations (Savage and
Webber 2013). When asked if “I generally consider faculty interests to be
opposed to those of the administration,” survey respondents were split almost
down the middle. About 65 percent of faculty members disagreed or were
neutral on this issue. This finding suggests that there is a widely held sentiment
that faculty and administrators can constructively problem-solve. It further
suggests that most faculty members do not see the employer–employee
Table 4. Professional Identity of Faculty Members
I identify as a
professional (%)
Unions and academics
do not mix (%)
I see faculty interests
oppositional to the
administration’s (%)
Strongly agree 63.5 2.1 7.6
Agree 24.9 5.2 27.9
Neutral 9.8 23.0 25.8
Disagree .8 45.0 31.8
Strongly disagree 1.0 24.6 7.0
Table 5. Examining Union and Professional Identities
I am proud to be a union member Total
Strongly
agree
Agree Neutral Disagree Strongly
disagree
I identify as a
professional
Strongly
agree
Count 84 69 72 16 5 246
Percentage 34.1% 28.0% 29.3% 6.5% 2.0% 100.0%
Agree Count 14 39 35 7 0 95
Percentage 14.7% 41.1% 36.8% 7.4% .0% 100.0%
Neutral Count 13 7 11 5 2 38
Percentage 34.2% 18.4% 28.9% 13.2% 5.3% 100.0%
Disagree Count 1 0 0 2 0 3
Percentage 33.3% .0% .0% 66.7% .0% 100.0%
Strongly
disagree
Count 1 0 1 0 2 4
Percentage 25.0% .0% 25.0% .0% 50.0% 100.0%
Total Count 113 115 119 30 9 386
Percentage 29.3% 29.8% 30.8% 7.8% 2.3% 100.0%
Pearson chi-square =77.970. Sig =.000.
Butovsky et al.: Faculty Attitudes toward Faculty Unions 255
relationship as inherently adversarial. This finding is consistent with the litera-
ture on unions of professionals, which has found that employees who identify as
professionals tend to prefer a non-militant style of union representation (Hurd
2000; Raelin 1989; Schlachter 1976). Faculty, as professionals, tend to see their
loyalty as belonging to their discipline, to their students, or to the principles of
academic freedom and collegial self-governance (Brown 2003; Savage, Webber,
and Butovsky 2012). In some cases, faculty associations pursue unionization
precisely to defend self-collegial governance and professional autonomy in the
workplace (Penner 1994; Rastin 2000; Savage, Webber, and Butovsky 2012),
thus providing more fodder for the idea that professionalism and unionization
can be mutually reinforcing.
Multivariate Analysis
We conducted a number of regression analyses concerning (a) satisfaction
with one’s union and (b) support for labor in the abstract, and (c) support for
specific labor actions as the dependent variables. The key rationale for multi-
variate analysis is to try to zero in on the independent effects of key predictor
variables by controlling for other variables that might influence a respondent’s
score on a given dependent variable.
Satisfaction with Union Performance
We constructed a composite variable based on the addition of the four
questions that ask respondents to rate the effectiveness of their union on a range
of functions (alpha =.767). These four questions are protecting collegial gover-
nance, protecting academic freedom, protecting professional standards of
academe, and negotiating improved wages and benefits. None of the demo-
graphic variables included in the model (faculty, rank, age, or gender) are a
significant predictor of satisfaction with the union (Table 6). A composite
variable capturing three variables measuring pro-union sentiment was strongly
related to satisfaction with their faculty association. Not surprisingly,
Table 6. Predicting Views on Faculty Association Effectiveness (n =317)
Model Unstandardized
coefficients
Standardized
coefficients
t Sig. r2
B Std. error Beta
(Constant) 10.081 1.538 6.555 .000 .109
Faculty .431 .418 .068 1.032 .303
Age .178 .119 .102 1.499 .135
Current rank −.256 .279 −.063 −.919 .359
Gender .427 .391 .072 1.093 .276
Working class .155 .449 .023 .346 .729
Pro-union position .363 .082 .295 4.415 .000
Dependent variable: satisfaction.
256 WORKINGUSA: THE JOURNAL OF LABOR AND SOCIETY
respondents with a pro-union outlook are more likely to have a higher level of
satisfaction with the performance of their union.
Support for Labor in General
We used a composite variable based on adding respondents’ answers to the
following questions: I consider myself pro-union, I am proud to be a union
member, and labor unions are a positive social force (alpha =.786). Looking at
Table 7, we see that faculty and age were the only significant demographic
predictors of the pro-union variable. Older members scored slightly higher on
the pro-union variable. Those members in the social sciences, humanities, and
education score about 1.3 points higher on the pro-union variable than those in
the other disciplines (scores range from a low of 3 to a high of 15, with the higher
score indicating that the respondent is more pro-union). This disciplinary dis-
tinction matches other work on the ideological orientation of the Canadian
professoriate (Nakhaie and Adam 2008; Nakhaie and Brym 2011), and is con-
sistent with the findings of Savage, Webber, and Butovsky (2012) that faculty
support for unionization at Brock University was highest in the faculties of social
sciences and education. Gender, rank, and working class background were not
significant predictors of pro-labor sentiment.
Discussion and Conclusions
So we can now revisit the hypotheses we presented earlier in the article.
Hypothesis 1 (faculty are satisfied with the work their union does for them) is
confirmed, particularly for negotiating salary and benefits, somewhat less for
protecting collegial governance. Hypothesis 2 (faculty are broadly pro-union) is
supported. Hypothesis 3 (faculty want their union to limit their political involve-
ment to matters directly related to postsecondary education) was confirmed.
Our findings about the generally pro-union views held by the faculty at
Brock, Lakehead, Laurentian, and Trent universities reveal important distinc-
tions between this group of professors and similar research about university
faculty in Canada more generally. Nakhaie and Brym (2011), for example, found
that Canadian university faculty as a group tilted to the left politically, but only
Table 7. Predicting Pro-Union Sentiment (n =317)
Model Unstandardized coefficients Standardized coefficients t Sig. r2
B Std. error Beta
(Constant) 12.711 .839 15.158 .000 .088
Faculty −1.295 .288 −.241 −4.491 .000
Age .181 .082 .125 2.201 .028
Current rank −.180 .200 −.051 −.901 .368
Gender .168 .278 .033 .605 .546
Working class .568 .326 .095 1.742 .083
Dependent variable.
Butovsky et al.: Faculty Attitudes toward Faculty Unions 257
slightly, and were quite heterogeneous in their views. This suggests that there
are important distinctions to be made between the types of universities (primar-
ily undergraduate vs. medical/doctoral) and between universities in different
provinces. American research, for example, demonstrates that support for labor
unions is lower among faculty at the larger, more prestigious universities
(Goldey et al. 2010). Even within universities, Nakhaie and Brym (1999) found
that faculty who are published in elite journals are less likely to be pro-union.
Professors from the universities we sampled are largely supportive of their
faculty unions and believe that the improvements to the terms and conditions of
work are due to their unions’ efforts. Respondents exhibited strong support for
the continuing relevance of unions, and most believe that unions and the labor
movement are positive social forces, suggesting that faculty value certain aspects
of labor unity. However, as Gindin and Stanford (2006, 382) remind us, “appar-
ent unity never automatically implies active solidarity.” This is certainly the case
in the postsecondary education sector, where it is clear from our survey results
that support for the labor movement comes with important caveats and does not
translate into full solidarity with other unions on campus or to a desire to see
faculty unions involved in political affairs beyond the narrow confines of the
university sector. One respondent (Faculty Survey 2012) summed up this view
when they wrote that their faculty “should not be involved with backing other
unions,” especially in “a situation that ha[s] nothing to do with us.”
Swartz and Warkett (2012, 20) correctly note that the “scope of the labour
movement’s solidarity is linked to how broad or narrow are the things we are
fighting for and against, whether limited to employers and the current terms and
conditions of employment or taking on systemic economic or political prob-
lems.” However, even when unions are willing and able to practice broader
forms of solidarity, Swartz and Warkett argue that sectionalism, economism, and
unions’ tendency to separate out the political and economic spheres present
three significant obstacles to ensuring that such solidarities are meaningful and
sustained. While the challenge of overcoming these obstacles exists in all labor
organizations, they are particularly acute in faculty unions, as evidenced by our
survey findings, in which respondents responded generally positively to the
“economic” functions of unions (like bargaining wage increases), but less posi-
tively to political action, especially the variety that extends beyond the narrow
confines of postsecondary education. Moreover, sectionalism and economism
figure prominently in faculty unions, where divisions between academics on the
tenure track and other groups of university workers are stark.
Despite this, unionized faculty members have come a long way in terms of
their comfort level with the labor movement at large and its broader notions of
solidarity. According to Savage (1994, 57), a survey of unionized Canadian
professors in the 1970s revealed that the “great majority were opposed to
collective bargaining in principle but thought the particular circumstances of
their university justified it.” Even after decades of experience with unionization,
former CAUT President Roland Penner predicted in 1994 that faculty unions
would never affiliate to labor movement centrals like the Canadian Labour
258 WORKINGUSA: THE JOURNAL OF LABOR AND SOCIETY
Congress (Penner 1994, 50). However, just a few years later, he would be proven
wrong. In 2001, the National Union of the CAUT was established for the
specific purpose of creating an avenue for faculty unions to affiliate to the
Congress and its respective provincial federation of labor. As of 2014, twenty-
one faculty associations across Canada had joined National Union of the Cana-
dian Association of University Teachers (NUCAUT), including Penner’s own
University of Manitoba (NUCAUT 2014).
This is not to suggest that university professors are positioned to lead a labor
movement resurgence. For although our study revealed that on the whole
university faculty were strongly pro-union, their union consciousness should not
be misinterpreted as class consciousness, and their conception of the proper role
and function of labor unions differs considerably from what the literature on
union renewal offers as effective strategies for reasserting union power.
Lévesque, Murray, and Le Queux (2005, 402) argue that coalition-building,
community unionism, and union democracy are key to the project of labor
movement renewal. However, none of these strategies figure prominently in the
politics of the university faculty associations we studied. While some faculty
unions in Ontario have made some halting progress in this direction through
joining local and provincial labor federations and building ad hoc or temporary
cross-campus alliances with students and other campus unions, there remains
some reluctance, or even outright opposition, from a large portion of the
membership, to become politically engaged in this way. One respondent felt that
most of their faculty association’s “money sent to [the Ontario Confederation of
University Faculty Associations] OCUFA and [the Canadian Association of
University Teachers] CAUT seems wasted on political lobbying,” while another
complained that their faculty union “should not be involved with backing other
unions to support labour solidarity” (Faculty Survey 2012).
While union leaders clearly need to be sensitive to the ideological and
political understandings of their members, they must also actively educate,
persuade, and agitate. Recent events in Wisconsin and Michigan, which showed
us that right-wing attacks on the very essence of labor unions can emerge quickly
and with little warning, demonstrate the importance of member activism and
sustained engagement.
Fiorito and Coleman Gallagher’s case study of union renewal at Florida
State University (2006) clearly demonstrates the benefits of member engage-
ment and internal organizing. Facing a legislatively imposed decentralization of
union representation and bargaining that risked wiping out the bargaining rights
of university faculty associations, the United Faculty of Florida’s affiliate at
Florida State viewed the right-wing attack as “an opportunity, if not an impera-
tive, to move the union ‘closer to the members’ ” (Fiorito and Coleman
Gallagher 2006, 60). Reflecting on the faculty association’s successful campaign
to preserve bargaining rights, Lévesque and Murray (2006, 9) argued that it
created a “virtuous circle in terms of enhanced militancy and activism on the part
of the union membership.” In a similar fashion, mounting austerity in Ontario
provides unionized faculty associations in that province with a silver lining
Butovsky et al.: Faculty Attitudes toward Faculty Unions 259
insofar as it may force faculty union leaders to reconnect with members, spur
internal organizing, and increase efforts at member education.
Despite the fact that our survey results revealed that very few respondents
supported the idea of having faculty associations become involved in election
campaigns or broader social struggles that were not directly linked to the
postsecondary education sector, local and provincial political struggles, whether
rooted in the university sector or not, are clearly interdependent. For example,
state-led attacks on collective bargaining rights, the proposed elimination of
union security provisions, onerous union disclosure laws, and legislation aimed
at undermining unions’ ability to engage in political action all shape the capacity
of unions, including faculty associations, to exist and bargain at the local level. In
short, by eschewing broader political struggles, the more economistic faculty
union functions that university professors do appreciate may be jeopardized.
As Kumar and Schenk (2006, 29) note, unions, in order to be effective, “have
to continually take stock of their situation, identify the challenges, and adapt and
modify their approaches, strategies and structures.” Faculty unions are no differ-
ent. On the surface, faculty associations may seem disconnected from some of the
more gloomy themes that dominate the literature on organized labor and union
renewal. After all, the number of unionized faculty associations is growing, not
shrinking, despite the relative dominance of business unionist frames and guild-
like mentalities among unions of university professors. Moving from a workplace-
centered model of business unionism, wherein improving salaries, benefits, and
working conditions are the central concerns of the faculty association, to a broader
social unionist perspective, which concerns itself with issues of social justice and
economic equality beyond the confines of the university, is strategically important
for faculty associations, despite the fact that there seems to be little demand for
this direction among the faculty members we surveyed.
Shifting in this direction is strategically important because the clock is
running out on traditional guild-like methods for sustaining faculty union
power. In the past, some faculty associations survived by cultivating relationships
with benevolent senior administrators, often drawn from the ranks of the faculty.
This approach to bargaining meant that faculty associations did not need to
develop any sort of culture of membership mobilization or political action,
secure in the knowledge that if traditional collective bargaining did not produce
a contract, an arbitrator would be called upon to deliver a fair and final settle-
ment. Some professionals view arbitration as the best method of resolving
disputes precisely because it appeals to their deference to expert knowledge and
judgment. However, neoliberal restructuring has worked to undermine this
long-standing perception by making it clear that “having the best arguments” is
no substitute for concrete bargaining power in the face of an intransigent
employer and an unsympathetic taxpaying public (Savage and Webber 2013).
University professors were historically more insulated from the class envy argu-
ments levied at public sector workers more generally, largely because their
elevated salary levels were not viewed as the product of unionization, but rather
as the result of meeting the stringent educational requirements typically
260 WORKINGUSA: THE JOURNAL OF LABOR AND SOCIETY
associated with the academy. However, this line of defense is proving increas-
ingly difficult to maintain amid unprecedented austerity measures in higher
education (Savage and Webber 2013).
Class envy is a problem, not just between “taxpayers” and faculty unions, but
also between faculty unions and contingent, part-time academic workers, or
working students. Lack of cooperation between workers’ organizations on a
single university campus limits opportunities for coordinated grievances, multi-
union bargaining strategies, and other university-wide campaigns. The same
logic applies to relationships between faculty associations and student organiza-
tions or other groups with a direct stake in the university. To be sure, such
alliances are difficult to maintain in the face of divergent short-term priorities
and a lack of trust and institutional infrastructure. However, when done right,
sustained campus-wide or campus–community alliances can provide faculty
associations with much-needed support in bargaining and in political battles
with university administration or the state.
For example, the Public Higher Education Network of Massachusetts
(PHENOM), a coalition of faculty, students, and community stakeholders
formed in 2005 to defend and fight for the expansion of state support for public
higher education in Massachusetts, was able to secure a number of victories, the
most impressive of which was a commitment from the governor to work toward
eliminating community college tuition (Clawson and Leiblum 2008, 25). The
coalition’s success, in part, depended on university faculty and staff’s decision to
reject the tendency to view student tuition and financial aid, on one hand, and
university labor costs, on the other, as a zero-sum game. Overcoming these
sectionalist impulses is extremely difficult, which is why coalitions like
PHENOM are rare. However, in the current political climate, these sorts of
alliances are increasingly important for both students and university workers.
Some faculty union leaders may read the results of our study with a degree
of satisfaction. However, this would be a mistake. For while it would be accurate
to interpret from the findings that university professors thought their unions did
a good job overall, this view seemingly reflects a specific idea of the role and
functions of labor unions as service-delivery organizations, responsible primarily
for negotiating and defending workplace entitlements. But as Dan Clawson
(2013, 29) suggests, “if the purpose of a union is for people to get together,
collectively decide what matters to them, and put forward a vision of a different
society and different values, then higher education unions are doing a lousy
job.”
Complacency, in many ways, is the biggest threat to faculty unions. In the
words of Clawson (2013, 29), “higher education is being transformed and
becoming privatized, and not only are we doing very little to oppose it, but also,
most of our members do not understand what’s happening, we have not made
connections to our natural allies, and we fail to see that the larger public blames
us for decisions others are making.” To be sure, university faculty are well
equipped to use their occupational status, cultural capital, and job security to
participate fully in the fight against the threats to higher education that Clawson
Butovsky et al.: Faculty Attitudes toward Faculty Unions 261
has identified. What is missing is the political will, organizational capacity, and
requisite union education required to transform faculty unions and mobilize
faculty members to speak out and participate in the collective actions that would
breathe life into Clawson’s prescriptions.
The evidence gathered from our survey confirms that there exists a lack of
urgency among university professors to use their unions in a broader social
struggle to combat neoliberalism. On one hand, this finding is hardly surprising
given the relatively privileged place of university professors within the university
hierarchy, their tepid relationship with the broader labor movement, and the
“professional” identity of their members. On the other hand, mounting austerity
will undoubtedly continue to push faculty unions and their members out of their
traditional comfort zones as they confront challenges related to government
funding cuts, threats to autonomy, and the growing precarious nature of aca-
demic labor. How this process will alter, transform, or consolidate the politics of
faculty unions in the long run is an open question, but in the short run there
appears to be a monumental mismatch between where professors would
like their unions to be and where their unions will need to be in order to preserve
the very things their members value in higher education.
Jonah Butovsky is Associate Professor in the Department of Sociology at Brock
University.
Larry Savage is Associate Professor and Director of the Centre for Labour
Studies at Brock University.
Michelle Webber is Associate Professor in the Department of Sociology at
Brock University.
Notes
The authors would like to thank the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council (SSHRC) for sup-
porting this research.
1. Accountability governance refers to bureaucratically derived performance indicators devised by senior
administrators to quantify and enhance faculty “productivity.” Its effect is typically the deprofessionalization
of faculty and an increase in managerial control.
2. Research on faculty unions tends to focus on organizing drives (Dixon, Tope, and Van Dyke 2008; Rastin
2000; Savage, Webber, and Butovsky 2012), the effects of collective bargaining on university workplaces
(Martinello 2009), and the perceptions of faculty about their relationship to their universities (Brown 2003).
In assessing the political orientation of university faculty in Canada, Nakhaie and Brym (1999, 2011)
concluded that professors tilt to the left of the general population, but only slightly, and with substantial
variation across universities and faculties within universities. While Nakhaie and Brym did ask their
respondents how they felt about unions in general, little literature exists that explores the relationship
between faculty unions and their own members (Katchanovski, Rothman, and Nevitte 2011) or other
groups of university workers. While Anderson and Jones (1998) examined the organizational capacity and
political activities of faculty associations in Canada, their study limited participation to the presidents or
senior executive officers of Canadian faculty associations. In contrast, our study answers David Camfield’s
(2005) call for more empirically grounded research concerning Canadian public sector unions as we focus
on members’ assessment of their unions and the labor movement more generally.
262 WORKINGUSA: THE JOURNAL OF LABOR AND SOCIETY
3. The literature on the determinants of union satisfaction and support among university faculty and other
related professions generally concludes that professionals are pragmatic “bread and butter” unionists who
focus their energies on core issues that relate to the terms and conditions of work rather than broader
political causes (Fiorito, Gallagher, and Fukami 1988; Jarley, Kuruvilla, and Casteel 1990). To the degree
that their unions are successful at improving salaries and working conditions, faculty members will support
them. The literature also supports the idea that a pro-union consciousness is not in conflict with profes-
sional identity or even antagonism to management, and thus provides more evidence of pragmatism
(Gordon, Beauvais, and Ladd 1984). Finally, there is no substantial or consistent evidence of a relationship
between demographic factors and union support among university faculty (Ng 1989).
4. Carleton’s faculty unionized in 1975, followed by Algoma in 1976, Ottawa, Windsor, and York in 1977, and
Lakehead and Laurentian in 1979 (CAUT bargaining status chart).
5. Faculty at Trent University certified in 1980, followed by faculty at Hearst in 1982 and Wilfrid Laurier in
1988.
6. As of 2014, the vast majority of university professors in Ontario are union members. In fact, faculty at only
three universities, McMaster University, University of Toronto, and the University of Waterloo, remain
non-union.
7. As with any survey, one potential limitation is the survey instrument itself and the potential for a range of
interpretations by participants of the wording of questions (Goldey et al. 2010). Further, surveys that draw
on member responses are limited by the level of knowledge of each union member about her or his own
union and its actions (Lévesque, Murray, and Le Queux 2005).
8. By “liberal” on social issues, we mean more critical of traditional social structures and morality, thus, for
example, showing greater acceptance for things like abortion rights and same-sex marriage.
9. There is one limitation to our characterization of faculty members as being slightly to the left of the
general population and even other union members. About 45 percent of faculty indicated they did not
find the “left–right” distinction meaningful. And those respondents who indicated they did not believe
in the left–right distinction did answer toward the right on a range of other variables compared with
those who did consider the left–right distinction meaningful. We would stress, however, that those
respondents who did not accept the left–right distinction were to the right in relative rather than absolute
terms.
References
Anderson, B., and G. Jones. 1998. Organizational capacity and political activities of Canadian university faculty
associations. Interchange 29:439–61.
Axelrod, P. 2008. Public policy in Ontario higher education: From Frost to Harris. In The exchange university:
The transformation of academic culture in Canada, ed. A. Chan and D. Fisher, 90–104. Vancouver: Univer-
sity of British Columbia Press.
Berry, J. 2005. Reclaiming the Ivory Tower:Organizing adjuncts to change higher education. New York: Monthly
Review Press.
Brown, W. 2003. Academic politics: Faculty unions and the academic perception. In Unionization in
the academy: Visions and realities, ed. J. DeCew, 139–65. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield
Publishers.
Camfield, D. 2005. Renewing the study of public sector unions in Canada. Socialist Studies 1 (2):55–73.
Canadian Association of University Teachers (CAUT). 2011. CAUT almanac 2010-2011. http://www.caut.ca/
docs/almanac/2010_caut_almanac_en.pdf (accessed April 1, 2015).
———. 2012. CAUT almanac 2011-2012. http://www.caut.ca/docs/default-source/almanac/almanac-2011-
2012.pdf (accessed April 1, 2015).
Clawson, D. 2013. Faculty unions at the crossroads: Why playing defense is a losing strategy. New Labor Forum
22 (1):29–35.
Clawson, D., and M. Leiblum. 2008. Class struggle in higher education. Equity & Excellence in Education 41
(1):12–30.
Clawson, D., and M. Page. 2011. The future of higher education. New York: Routledge.
Cohn, M. R. 2012. Politics of restraint for an austerity budget. Toronto Star, March 27, 2012.
Cote, J., and A. Allahar. 2011. Lowering higher education: The rise of the corporate university and the decline of liberal
education. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.
Butovsky et al.: Faculty Attitudes toward Faculty Unions 263
Crain, M. 2004. The transformation of the professional workforce. Chicago-Kent Law Review 79:543–615.
Dixon, M., D. Tope, and N. Van Dyke. 2008. ‘The university works because we do’: On the determinants of
campus labor organizing in the 1990s. Sociological Perspectives 51 (2):375–96.
Dobbie, D., and I. Robinson. 2008. Reorganizing higher education in the United States and Canada:
The erosion of tenure and the unionization of contingent faculty. Labor Studies Journal 33 (2):117–
40.
Environics. 2011. Public service alliance of Canada membership poll April 2011. Public Service Alliance of
Canada, unreported.
Faculty Survey. 2012. Survey of full-time faculty members at Brock, Nipissing, Lakehead, and Trent
universities.
Fiorito, J., and V. Coleman Gallagher. 2006. Renewal in the united faculty of Florida: Class war in paradise?
Labor Studies Journal 31 (3):39–64.
Fiorito, J., D. G. Gallagher, and C. V. Fukami. 1988. Satisfaction with union representation. Industrial and
Labor Relations Review 41 (2):294–307.
Fournier, P., F. Cutler, S. Soroka, and D. Stolle. 2011. The 2011 Canadian election study [dataset].
Gindin, S., and J. Stanford. 2006. Canadian labour and the political economy of transformation. In Working in
a global era: Canadian perspectives, ed. V. Shalla, 379–94. Toronto: CSPI.
Ginsberg, B. 2011. The fall of the faculty: The rise of the all administrative university and why it matters. New York:
Oxford University Press.
Goldey, G., E. Swank, C. Hardesty, and R. Swain. 2010. Union professors: Framing processes, mobilizing
structures and participation in faculty unions. Sociological Inquiry 80 (3):331–53.
Gordon, M. E., L. L. Beauvais, and R. T. Ladd. 1984. The job satisfaction and union commitment of unionized
engineers. Industrial and Labor Relations Review 37:359–70.
Harvey, D. 2007. A brief history of neoliberalism. New York: Oxford University Press.
Hurd, R. W. 2000. Paper on professional workers, unions and associations: Affinities and antipathies. Albert
Shanker Institute Seminar on Union Organizing Professionals.
Jarley, P., S. Kuruvilla, and D. Casteel. 1990. Member-union relations and union satisfaction. Industrial
Relations 29:129–34.
Katchanovski, I., S. Rothman, and N. Nevitte. 2011. Attitudes towards faculty unions and collective bargaining
in American and Canadian universities. Industrial Relations 66 (3):349–73.
Kumar, P., and C. Schenk. 2006. Unions renewal and organizational change: A review of the literature. In Paths
to union renewal, ed. P. Kumar and C. Schenk, 29–60. Toronto: Broadview.
Lévesque, C., and G. Murray. 2006. How do unions renew? Paths to union renewal. Labor Studies Journal 31
(1):1–13.
Lévesque, C., G. Murray, and S. Le Queux. 2005. Union disaffection and social identity: Democracy as a
source of union revitalization. Work and Occupations 32 (4):400–22.
Martinello, F. 2009. Faculty salaries in Ontario: Compression, inversion, and the effects of alternative forms
of representation. Industrial and Labor Relations Review 63 (1):128–45.
Nakhaie, M. R., and R. J. Brym. 1999. The political attitudes of Canadian professors. Canadian Journal of
Sociology 24 (3):329–53.
Nakhaie, M. R., and Barry D. Adam. 2008. Political affiliation of Canadian professors. The Canadian Journal
of Sociology 24:329–53.
———. 2011. The ideological orientations of Canadian university professors. Canadian Journal of Higher
Education 41 (1):18–33.
Nelson, C. 2010. No university is an island: Saving academic freedom. New York: New York University Press.
Newstadt, E. 2008. The neoliberal university: Looking at the York strike. Socialist Project E-Bulletin No. 165
(December 5).
Ng, I. 1989. Determinants of union commitment among university faculty. Relations Industrielles/Industrial
Relations 44 (4):769–84.
NUCAUT. 2014. Members list, http://www.nucaut.ca/members.asp (accessed April 1, 2015).
Ontario Confederation of University Faculty Associations (OCUFA). 2012. OCUFA analysis of the
Drummond report: Long on cuts, short on insight. http://ocufa.on.ca/research-publications/research-
analysis/quality/ (accessed April 1, 2015).
Panitch, L., and D. Swartz. 2003. From consent to coercion: the assault on trade union freedoms. Aurora: Garamond
Press.
Penner, R. 1994. Unionization, democracy and the university. Interchange 25:49–53.
Raelin, J. A. 1989. Unionization and deprofessionalization: Which comes first? Journal of Organizational
Behavior 10:101–15.
264 WORKINGUSA: THE JOURNAL OF LABOR AND SOCIETY
Rastin, S. 2000. Organizing tactics in a faculty unionization drive at a Canadian University. Labor Studies
Journal 25 (2):99–119.
Savage, D. 1994. How and why the CAUT became involved with collective bargaining. Interchange 25
(1):55–63.
Savage, L., and M. Webber. 2013. The paradox of professionalism: Unions of professionals in the public sector.
In Public sector unions in the age of austerity, ed. S. Ross and L. Savage, 114–125. Halifax: Fernwood.
Savage, L., M. Webber, and J. Butovsky. 2012. Organizing the Ivory Tower: The unionization of the brock
university faculty association. Labor Studies Journal 37 (3):293–310.
Schlachter, G. A. 1976. Professionalism v. unionism. Library Trends 25:451–73.
Swartz, D., and R. Warkett. 2012. Canadian labour and the crisis of solidarity. In Rethinking the politics of labour
in Canada, ed. S. Ross and L. Savage, 18–32. Halifax: Fernwood.
Butovsky et al.: Faculty Attitudes toward Faculty Unions 265
