This item is only available as the following downloads:
HOW THEY DID IT AND WHY IT WORKED : A SOCIOLOGICAL EXAMIN ATION OF THE UNITED FACULTY OF FLORIDA BETWEEN 1968 1981 BY ABIGAIL B. DEATLEY A Thesis Submitted to the division of Social Sciences New College of Florida In partial fulfillment of th e requirements for the degree Bachelor of the Arts Under the sponsorship Dr. David Brain Sarasota, FL May 2009
ii HOW THEY DID IT AND WHY I T WORKED: A SOCIOLOGICAL EXAMIN ATION OF THE UNITED FACULTY OF FLORIDA BETWEEN 1968 1981 Abigail DeAtley New College of Florida, 2009 ABSTRACT With the passage of local and federal public employee collective barg aining legislation, the process of faculty unionization began all over the cou ntry. This thesis examines how United Faculty of Florida, the faculty union of Florida, would come into fruition in the late 1960s and early 1970s It examines how sociological factors, such as institutional structure s organizational culture, and charisma tic leadership made faculty unionization possible in a conservative, right to work state. This thesis environment on Florida campuses in the late 1960s in order to form a successful f aculty union movement. It also argues that national affiliations played a vital role in the rise and eventually decline in union membership. David Brain Division of Social Sc iences
iii Table of Contents .ii v 1 5 7 U nionization in Florida 10 Factors Behind 12 The Development and Constrai 15 Faculty Union ization in Florida 18 Charismatic Le adership .. 20 Ken Megill: Who is He and why can He be Viewed as .. 22 .. 27 35 Organizational Culture as an Aid to Group Cohesion in .41 O rganizational Culture as 44 External/Intern 46 49 Affiliations in the Union .55 58 American Fed 60 American Association of U 63 ions and the Impact they 65 69 C 73
iv 75 76
v Acronyms UFF United Faculty of Florida AFT American Federation of Teachers NEA National Education Association FEA Florida Education Association AAUP American Association of University Professors AFL CIO American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations R TW Right to work DTB Duty to bargain NLRB National Labor Relations Board PERC Public Employee Relations Committee BOR Board of Regents AFSCME American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Workers PERB Public Employee Relations Board
1 I. Introduction presence of ladies Mark Ryko finishes his story with a flourish and picks up Hawaiian shirt and khaki shorts that only vacationers can get away with telling me about the rash of unjust faculty firings and tenure denials that occurred around the state in the early 1970s. It would be these firings that would serve as an enormous impetus to mobilizing the faculty to unionize. research and interviews, I story. My thesis is titled How They Did It and Why It Worked: A Sociological Examination of the United Faculty of Florida between 1968 1981. (UFF) is. UFF is the faculty union of Florida. It began in the late 1960s why dedicate an entire thesis to the first ten years? What is so special about a faculty union in Florid a? Well, faculty unions in general are a unique phenomenon in the larger context of unionization and the labor movement. A faculty union is
2 an interesting entity in itself because faculty are considered a professionalized field. Historically, professionali zed fields such as college faculty do not unionize. Professionalization suggests that within a field, there is a set of standardized qualifications across the field, a closing of the field to outsiders, and professionalization is often associated with jobs that high a level of prestige, income, and privileges. This could be attributed to professionalized fields often having higher wages than non professionalized fields and a sense of unionization being more suited to blue collar laborers. Other reasons fac independence from other faculty, a potentially high level of governance within an institution, and the potential for stable working conditions. reason universities had to hire large numbers of new professors. Universities like University of Florida and Florida Internatio nal University hired young professors who had attended college during the politically tumultuous time of the 60s. These new professors were often politically radical and ended up clashing with the conservative, older administrators and Board of Regents at the Universities. The Universities responded by taking actions such as denying tenure to the most openly liberal professors. Faculty members organized in part because they felt that their job security and integrity was being threatened by the administratio ns. In addition, state
3 budget cuts negatively affected pay raises and eventually, in 1976, a 0 pay raise was given to all Florida faculty, which served as a huge impetus for unionization. But perhaps the most interesting catalyst for UFF was the desire of many faculty members to find different ways to identify with the larger social and political movements going on at the time for instance, holding protests, giving speeches at Civil Rights rallies, and wanting to identify with the labor movement. Unionizat ion was merely an extension of these desires a very tangible manifestation of political beliefs for the earliest organizers. My thesis looks at the initial organizing efforts of UFF and how sociological concepts can be used to explore and further underst and the formation of United Faculty of Florida. The two particular theoretical idea of organizational culture. Charismatic authority, as defined by Weber, is on d evotion to the exceptional sanctity, heroism or exemplary ch aracter of an individual person (Weber 1947). Charisma refers to a quality within the individual which sets himself or herself apart from ordinary people and he or she is treated as endowed with supernatural, superhuman, or at least specifically exceptional powers or qualities. This quality informs charismatic authority which is using this quality in order to lead others. Although it is often viewed as an unstable concept, it is a useful lens to view the early union leader Mark Ryko Ryko possessed many of the traits
4 Weber finds in charismatic leaders a desire to work outside established institutional regulations and norms, he established himself as countercultural because of his political belie fs and his teaching of Marx on a conservative campus, his willingness to shoulder personal risk for his beliefs (exemplified by his denial of tenure), and his use of innovative organizing techniques all were facets of his type of charismatic authority. F or the concept of organizational culture, Schein asserts which consists of looking at early artifacts, stages, and harmony between levels of culture years. To wrap it up, UFF was an organizations that survived against many institutional odds. There was a mixture of very important external and internal contextual factors th at allowed UFF to succeed in spite of a climate conducive to its failure. I chose to research by way of articles, books, and very colorful interviews the history and use the ideas of charismatic authority and organizational culture to view why and how UF F succeeded.
5 II. Methods My methods for collecting research were conducting semi structured interviews, researching archival data, and analyzing current literature on faculty unionization, public employee unionization, charismatic leadership, and organizational culture. I conducted ten semi structured interviews. However of these ten, only five were directly relevant to my thesis. The other five interviewees had become involved in the union after the time period I was researching. The interviews took place at a United Faculty of Florida conference, at a caf, in the homes of those interviewed, as well as over the phone and one took place over the internet. I had a set list of general questions which I asked each interviewee. These questions addre ssed how that individual got involved in the union, what were the biggest trials that the union went through, what were the biggest triumphs, how did the union come to be, etc. I let the interviewee take the questions where they liked and would ask clarify ing or follow up questions as needed. In my thesis, I use pseudonyms for all the interviewees for their confidentiality and comfort. I include a demographic chart in the appendix in order to clarify each In order to resea rch archival data, I pursued court cases, newspaper to University of Central Florida, University of Florida, and Florida State
6 University in order to gain access to early union i nformation such as membership rates and early union documents.
7 I II. A Brief History of Unionization Trade unions can be traced back to the eighteenth century, when rapid industrialization brought massive amounts of unskilled and sem i skilled laborers into the workforce. These new laborers spurred on the union movement and legislation regarding unions started being drafted at federal and state levels. The National Labor Relations Act, also known as the Wagner Act, was passed by Congr ess in 1935. This Act protected the rights of most workers in the private sector to collect ively bargain and to strike (Burgan 2006 ) The Wagner Act was amended in 1947 by the Labor Management Relations Act, which dealt with union operations. The Labor Ma nagement Relations Act combined with the right to work concept created an atmosphere that made it especially difficult for public employees (including faculty at public universities) to unionize. Even when public employees were granted the right to union ize and collectively bargain, states like Florida amended their Constitution to include right to work legislation which made it difficult for unions to sustain themselves. The 1947 passage of the Labor Management Relations Act, also known as the Taft ed shop (Burgan 2006). The closed shop meant that employees at unionized workplaces were required to be members of the union as a condition of employment. Thus, an employee could be fired for not payin g dues or being expelled from the union. The Taft Hartley Act required unions to
8 operate mean ing an employee cannot be forced to join a union or pay the equivalent of dues to a union, nor can the employee be fired if he or she jo ins the union. The passage of the Taft Hartley Act gave birth to the concept of union security clause s and thus establish right to work legislation (Burgan 2006) Right to w ork clauses state that regardless of whether or not an employee is a member or financial contributor to such a union, he/she has the right to benefit from the bargaining of the union and the union contracts (Florida Public Employees Relations Commission). States that support right to work legislation argue that right to work states ensure freedom of association and that right to work states are economically stronger because companies and businesses prefer closed shop states (National Right to Work Legal Def ense Foundation Website Accessed 11/01/2008) People who support right to work legislation often refer to non right to work states as forced union states, because employers have the option to include a mandatory dues clause in union contracts. Most right t o work states are located in the Southern and Western United States. While there are twenty two states with right to work laws, only Florida, Arizona, Arkansas, and Oklahoma have added right to work clauses to their state constitutions. Opponents of right to work legislation argue that the policy
9 union without having to pay the crucial dues that make the union sustainable (The South Carolina Governance Project Interest Groups in South Carolina Website Accessed 11/01/2009) The lack of dues, non right to work supporters argue, make unions almost impossible to sustain due to lack of financial support. The average pay for comparable jobs in right to work states is lower than that in state s that to do not have right to work legislation, creating salaries. Another argument aga inst right to work legislation is that it decrease s work place safety. All of the twenty two right to work states are in the t op twenty five states for highest worker mortality rates (Right to Work for Less Website Accessed 11/01/2009). While that statement is striking, I believe it needs to be qualified. Many of the right to work states are states where mining and other high ris ks jobs are prevalent. Florida enacted its first right to work law in 1944 (Waldrop 1980). The right to work law was written into the 1968 Florida Constitution, making Florida one of only four states to include r ight to work legislation in its Constitut ion. membership or non membership in any labor union or labor organization. The right of employees, by and through a labor organization, to bargain collectively shall not be denied or abridged. Public employees shall not have the right to strike This right to work article in the Florida Constitution was a major obstacle for organizing, as it took away much of the power tha t unions rely on. This power consists of the right to strike and the financial stability offered by union dues. The right to work laws specified that public
10 employees could not strike but that did not prevent them from organizing as a union and collectivel y bargaining. The right to strike is important to unions because it often acts as the leveraging tool in the bargaining process. Unionization in Florida Unionization gained momentum in Florida and the rest of the Sun Belt during the 1970s when right to work laws were being introduced into Florida legislation While unionism was usually associated with blue fa ctors: 1) the economics of the union and 2) the changing pattern of values, attitudes and expectations of the white c ollar employee (Stanton 1972) White co llar employees began organizing in part because of a more accepting climate marked by the shift fr om the stigmatization of union s as communist associations prevalent in the 1950s. Despite the aforementioned right to work laws (which should have hindered unionization), t here was also an increasing amount of legislation that was being introduced at state and federal levels which facilitated public employee unionization. In 1967 Florida fir st saw public employee unionism, when firefighters in several Florida counties were able to unionize (Miller and Canak 1991) In 1968, Florida teachers held a state wid e strike, despite it being constitutionally illegal. The se teachers were striking to raise taxes
11 for education, and while this was not accomplished, they did set in motion the establishment of a framework for public employees to collectively bargain. The 1 969 Florida Supreme Court case, Dade County Teac Association v. Ryan, upheld bargai ning. This effectively overturned decision which excluded public employees from collective barg aining. However, public employees still do not have the right to strike (Miller, Canak, 1991) The decision led to PERC was responsible for t he 1974 Public Employee Relations Act, which reads, 447.201 Statement of policy. It is declared that the public policy of the state, and the purpose of this part, is to provide statutory implementation of s. 6, Art. I of the State Constitution, with resp ect to public employees; to promote harmonious and cooperative relationships between government and its employees, both collectively and individually; and to protect the public by assuring, at all times, the orderly and uninterrupted operations and functio ns of government. It is the intent of the Legislature that nothing herein shall be construed either to encourage or discourage organization of public employees. These policies are best effectuated by: 1. Granting to public employees the right of organizati on and representation; 2. Requiring the state, local governments and other political subdivisions to negotiation with bargaining agents duly certified to represent public employees; 3. Creating a Public Employees Relations Commission to assist in resolving disputes between public employees and public employers; and 4. Recognizing the constitutional prohibition against strikes by public employees and providing remedies f or violations of such provision. (Public Employee Relations Committee Handbook) The P ublic Employee Relations Act would pave the road for all public employees to unionize in the state of Florida. However, faculty
12 members in Florida would face further challenges including the tension of professionalization, conservative anti union universit y presidents, and a Board of Regents that was doing everything in its power to weaken and disband the struggling union of the faculty of Florida. Factors Behind Faculty Unionization Faculty are quite different fr om the typical union workforce. A lack of governance among workers is often an important motivating factor for unionization. However, even without unionization, faculty tend to have a greater amount of governance in the workplace than more typically unionized occupations Governance in the workpla ce includes the ability to make decisions regarding your work environment. For faculty this could involve the ability to choose what you teach or research when you plan to teach a particular course, and how much freedom you have to make decisions related to your work. In addition, tenured faculty have a level of job security not found in any other unionized field. As professionalized job fields typically do not unionize, it was unexpected when faculty began organize. G iven the unusual context of their pr ofessional field why did faculties unionize so rapidly during the 1960s and 1970s ? To understand why, one must realize the subtleties of faculty work during that time period. While faculty may have exhibited a seemingly high level of governance, autonomy, and stable working conditions, many issues still plag ued faculty during this period. With the
13 numbers of people attending college booming in the post World War II era, many universities began to be chartered. This involved the transition from a small coll ege or community college to a recognized state university. As universities expanded in number and in size, levels of bureaucracy within the institution increased and universities began to be modeled after and run like corporations. U niversities began stres sing enrollment numbers, attempting to grow in order to attract a more varied addition to being places of education began to be realized. In addi tion to the new constraints of an ev olving workplace, f aculty unionization can be attributed to three more explicit circumstances : a wildly growing professoriate, a shrinking federal/state budget, and the passage of collective bargaining laws for public employee s (Carr and Van Eyck, 1973; Du ryea, Fisk, & Associates, 1973; Garbarino 1975; Kemerer & Baldridge, 1975 ) A n additional factor, addressed in a few of my interviews (though largely absent in the literature about faculty unions ) deals with faculty unionization a s the desire to represent stand by, and support the labor moveme nt by un : The idea of unionism is that t he workers stick together and tha t is the principle leverage we have against t he power structure for whom we w ork, whatever it is. state and in private economi es. I only when we stand together and s ay You can s the only way to kee p them from mistreating people (Interview 2).
14 In the literature, f aculty members cited three additional desires which justified their decision to unionize. These desires were for increased participation in institutional governance, tenure and job security, and jus t compensation (Carr and Van Eyck, 1973; Duryea, Fisk, & Associates, 1973; Garbarino 1975). Cameron found that early participants in faculty arbitrariness in promotion decisions and an increase in job security for nonteaching professionals as major outcomes of f (Cameron 1982). Walker and Lawler (1978) state that unions were seen as an advocate of employee rights and as a functioning hedge against perceived threats such as denials of tenure and issues of academic freedom Negotiating salary increases was seen as secondary by this group and more abstract issues, such as academic freedom rights were found to be paramount in joining unions. Another asset to faculty u nionization was the implementation of duty to bargain laws. The state of Florida is the only state in the S outh that has a law providing for unionization and collective bargaining rights for public employees, including faculty at public i nstitutions of hi gher education ( Bruce, Fiorito 2005 ) The effects of DTB laws are significant ( I chniowski, Zac 1990) It is estimated that if non DTB states implemented DTB laws, the rate of bargaining formation would more than double. Also, Ichniowski and Zac (1990) as laws account for virtually all of the differences in the average rates of
15 unionization between DTB and non collective bargaining law in 1974, which is roughly the same time that Unit ed Faculty o f Florida began its state wide organizing. The inception of UFF was clearly aided by the passage of DTB laws in Florida. Over a longitudin al study, it was revealed that, bargaining among teachers and police undeniably follow s the enactment of strong bargaining laws (S altzman 1985; Ichniowski 1988). To put it in a more tangible perspective, in 1976, the number of newly organized institutions was 53 and the number of organized faculty members rose from about 9,000 to abo ut 15,000. At the end of 1976, 450 institutions with 117,000 faculty and professional staff had established Employment Collective Bargaining Law). The Development and Constraints of Faculty Unionization The first faculty unions in institutions of higher education were organized at two community colleges in Michigan in 1965. Faculty unionization quickly spread through the north. In December of 1968, the CUNY campuses in New York uni onized, which is widely regarded as the universities were unionized, representing between 25% and 30% of all fu ll
16 Not all faculty supported unionization. S ome (or occasionally the majority, depending on the university) faculty decided not to unionize because of the perception of unionization as a zero sum game. U nionization is often vi ewed as adversarial; for o ne group to gain power, another one has to lose power. In a profession that historically has prided itself on positive relations amongst peers, colleagues, and even administrators, it is easy to see why a potentially controversial process such as unionization could foster negative feelings amongst some faculty. In addition, faculty members often view themselves as fiercely independent due to research and publication requirements. Unionization plays to the strength of faculty as a g roup instead of on e particular member and in a profession where individuality among peers often as disadvantageous to unionize. Even at universities where unionization happened early and quickly it was a divisive issue for some faculty and created tension between faculty members. Faculty unionization inherently implies striking a balance between improved working conditions and s The faculty want their demands met without changing the tone between each other and the administration from a positive one to a negative one. The process of unionization changes the legal relationship between fac ulty and
17 administrators, often affecting other aspects of the relationship, purposely or not. Another potential hindrance to unionization was evidenced by the type of institutions that unionized during this period. The top tier research institutions were n ot unionizing. The Ivy League colleges were not unionizing. Many professors at mid level universities felt that unionizing would actually hinder the ability of the university and/or faculty to commit to research and would thus lessen its chances of becomin g a better university. Some claimed that unionization is the impulse of faculty who can not compete with their elite peers and need protective measures in order to keep their job (Arnold 2000 ). However, the faculty at premier research institutions are oft en responsible for fewer classes and have a greater amount of autonomy within their department. These structural factors make unionization less pressing for professors at top tier institutions rather than perhaps the community college professor who is expe cted to teach six classes, is paid per class, and has other duties in addition to teaching Thus, c ollective barga ining in higher education first appeared in the two year vocational college setting, at institutions such as Milwaukee Technical Institute, w here collective bargaining was adopted in 1963 (Arnold 2000 ). It then made the leap to fo ur year institutions In 1966, only one four year institution was unionized but by 1970 that number had jumped to 40. By 1974, 132 four year institutions were unionize d. In
18 1967, only 300 faculty members were organized but within seven years, that number would grow to 60,000 faculty members (Arnold 2000 ). 1980 would be the year that would halt the exponential growth of faculty unionization The critical event in damp ening faculty unionization in American higher education was the landmark 1980 Supreme Court decision in the National Labor Relat ions Board v. Yeshiva University (Arnold 2000 ). The case centered on the argument that faculty at private universities should n ot be able to unionize because faculty members are managers and not laborers. In a 5 4 decision, the Supreme Court ruled against the NRLB. The decision held that faculty members at Yeshiva University were essentially managerial employees and were therefor e not covere d under provisions of the NLR B This would halt private university unionization across the nation and would send public university unionization into a downward spiral for the next two decades. Between 1986 and 1990, no new four year (public or private) institutions voted to unionize. Faculty Unionization in Florida This uphill fight for public employee unionism extended to professors in the state of Florida. The impetus for unionizing in the 1970s included the ra sh of faculty firings or tenure denials around the state due anti Vietnam War protests, Black Panther movement, as well as other
19 progressive or liberal social movements. Thus, trends in unionization were linked to contextual historical situations. Factor unionization happened fairly simultaneously at University of Florida, University of South Florida, and Brevard Community College. Despite widespread state level o pposition to the formation of faculty union s faculty continue d to organize. In 1968, UF, USF, and BCC all ch artered unions. However, these unions were not bargaining agents and the universities d id not r ecognize them as such. This made the unions largely symbolic and relatively powerless. However, due to the organiz ing efforts of a few very dedicated individuals, these unions were able to overcome the conservative political atmosphere and organize a union with almost no money and little support from the administrations at the various universities. The next chapters of this thesis will look at how creative and persistent organizing allowed faculty union to organize successfully despite facing obstacles including anti union legislation, within group tension, conservative political and social atmospheres, and powerful opponents which had many more resources (both financial and administrative) than the fledgling United Faculty of Florida.
20 I V Charismatic Leadership Charismatic authority has been utilized in social movements across the cen turies across the globe and in varying fields; unions are no exception Yet the concept of charisma can be an elusive one and it is often thought to be an innate characteristic rather than a learned one. Max Weber defines charismatic authority as "restin g on devotion to the exceptional sanctity, heroism or exemplary character of an individual person, and of the normative patterns or order revealed or ordained by him (Weber 1947 ). An individual person must exude or be thought to exude these characteri stics in order to employ charismatic authority. Charismatic authority can elicit strong loyalty to a movement leader and thus to a movement It does so in a manner that is appealing and powerful for both the leader and the people he or she is leading. A ch arismatic leader is much more important than a figure who merely step s in to lead an already meaningful and powerful organization : Weber argues that it is the charismatic leader her/himself that imbues that organization with meaning and purpose. Charism a is powerful because of its ability to threaten the status authority and established rules. It can be revolutionary, breaking traditional rules and can even challenge legal authorit y (Giddens 1995 ). Thus charismatic le aders often depend on follower s perceptions of them qualities ( Berger,
21 1963; Conger, 1985; Dow, 1969; Friendland, 1964; Marcus, 1961) They entional, countercultural, and therefore innovative behavior while leading their followers toward their realization of their visions (Conger, Nath 1998) That is to say charismatic leaders work towards goals that are valued as countercultural in order to attain status as a charismatic leader ; often, charismatic leaders set goals which challenge cultural norms seen as problematic by their followers T hey also must work towards t hese goals in an innovative and often novel manner. I t is important to their suc cess that charismatic leaders identify with the people they are leading. A hurdle for charismatic leaders is to convince their followers that innovative tactic s outside the mainstream are the best tactics for the job. Innovative organizing techniques are c rucial to the creation of a charismatic leader because innovation is required to organize a new movement ( i.e. faculty unionization) that challenge s the status quo in a particular field ( i.e. the academy). To further strengthen their role as a charismatic self sacrifice must be present. These two requirements are crucial components for a charismatic leader to be qualified as such and to achieve goals. Ken Megill, a one time professor at University of Florida and an early leader in United Faculty of Florida, can be considered a charismatic leader. All of my interviewees spoke of Ken Megill as an early and influential leader and a crucial part of
22 However, a fter United Faculty of Florida was able to get certified and was up and running for around three years, leadership style began to divide the other union leaders as will be discussed in a later chapter W hile no one I interviewed explicit ly referred to Ken Megill as a charismatic leader, I argue that the union could not have succeeded without his charismatic authority. Ken Megill : Who is he and why can he be viewed as a charismatic leader ? Ken Megill received his doctorate from Yale University and was an untenured professor of Marxist Philosophy at University of Florida in the late 1960s and early 1970s. His lectures drew large crowds of non students, faculty, and other staff. He attributes this to te class on a conservative campus ( Ryko 2008 ) He had already set himself up as countercultural just by way of what he chose to study and the classes he taught at University of Florida It was the first class at University of Florida taught on Marx ; i t is important to note that a class on Marx In addition to his progressive research and teaching interests, he was also very involved with t he Civil Rights movement, the anti Vietnam War moveme nt, and had expressed support for the Black Panther movement. He often attended rallies for social movements and considered himself a very active participant in the protest circuit in Florida ( Ryko 2008 ) It is important to recognize that during this time period, Megill established himself as a
23 figure whose political and social beliefs were outside of the established cultural norms. Despite the fact the sixties are widely seen as h a ving been a liberal time on campuses, openly Marxist faculty on any campus (especially the conservative UF campus) were still singled out as liberal and discriminated against by the administration, often by tenure denials. Yet i n spite of 1972 by the department, the c ollege, and the tenure committee appointed Chief Justice of the Florida Supreme Court before he stepped down to become Un and conservative figure had been Chief Justice when Florida upheld segregatio n and other Jim Crow era laws ; i n 1957 while serving on the Florida Supreme Court, J ustice Stephen O'Connell con curred with the court's decision to deny Virgil Hawkins's request to attend the University of Florida. Virgil Hawkins was a black man who brought his case before th e Florida Supreme Court 5 times (Florida Law Website Accessed 3/16/2009). also ha d 65 black students arrested and suspended for staging a peaceful sit in in his office in 1971. Over h alf the students did not return to University of Florida and found it almost impossible to refused to
24 meet with any of the groups who staged the sit in and refu sed to recognize their demand s personally interfered to deny Megill tenure. He cited as his reason an event that took place at a holiday party that Megill acted inappropriately in public. The source of th is accusation was an incident at the Yale Club of Gai nesville at the annual holiday party During this gat hering, a fe llow University of Florida p rofessor claimed that Megill had cost the university $8 million in funding due to his radical politics In his defense, and under the influence of alcohol, Megill sa id b ullshit in the presence of ladies Ryko 2008 Smith 2008 ). However, it was (and still is) widely accepted that the tenure denial was actually political ly motivated personal and political views did not only raise the ire of A state senator from Jacksonville, Tom Slade, was enraged by a speech Megill the mos t important political idea of the time s movement and the stu dent movement needed to unite to take control of the university ( Ryko 2008 ) The actual quote from speech is: The support of members of the department where I work, of the students with whom I am associated, of the black militants whom I am happ y to call my friends and many citizens who have defended my right to speak and teach has made it possible for me to remain at the University of Florida. Yet the events of the past week have shown that bayonets speak louder than the words of any professor, just as the events of the past month have confirmed the long history of political meddling in the public universities of Florida should realize that our university is still an authoritarian institution in which the faculty and
25 students are powerless when facing the decisions of a politically appointed president. Police violence and political meddling are still facts of life for the public universities of Florida (Dr. Kenneth Megill v. Board of Regents of the State of Florida, November 1, 1976 ) Slade called for dismissal, threatening to cut off funding to the institution if such dismissal did not happen. Whatever the reasoning behind the decision it was the act of deny ing him tenure that further laid the foundation for Megill as a future charismatic leader. His denial of tenure displayed his ability to shoulder personal risk and make (or at least, endure) sacrifice for what he believed in. His denial of tenure wa s important in the organization of United Faculty of Florida because it set h im up as an unfairly persecuted faculty his charismatic authority to transfer to other members of UFF) and was fired for it. This is a crucial component to charismatic authority, a s it lends legitimacy to the leader and thus the movement. Megill decided to fight the denial of tenure. For his defense, Megill was offered full support from the A merican F ederation of T eachers such that the nat ional union (AFT, AFL CIO) sent legal supp ort for him For the public hearing, Michael Schwartz, an attorney from M iami and friend of Art Hallgren (AFL CIO) was appointed the heari ng officer. He recommended reversing the firing and the case went to the Board of Regents. The BOR, under the chairma nship of Marshall Criser upheld decision to deny tenure to Megill. Megill was then placed at a crossroads forced to decide whether to take a job elsewhere or stay to
26 fight the case through the court system. He chose the latt er believing he w ould win. The AFT continue d to offer him support i n a legal battle which would last about three years. The case went to fifth circuit court of appeals and on November 1, 1976, the court eventually rule d that a person without a contract could be fired for no reason, any reason, or for false reason s (Atllaw.org Accessed 3/16 /2009). The exact wording is as follows: Plaintiff, a university professor, brought this civil rights action against the State Board of Regents for refusing to grant him tenure, alleging that in denying him tenure the defendants subjected him to a deprivation of his constitutional rights of free speech and due process. We affirm the district court's denial of relief to the professor on the ground that there was no violation of his federal rights ... As far as the federal court is concerned, the state could deny tenure to the plaintiff for no reason, a reason based on erroneous facts, or for any reason it chose, except for a reason that violated the plaintiff's constitutional rights. The fede ral court's only function in such a case is to decide the merits of plaintiff's constitutional claims ven assuming that the Board arbitrarily denied tenure to plaintiff after he had "proven" his case for tenure, the teachings of Bishop v. Wood indicate th at the federal courts would not have a place in the controversy absent a constitutional challenge. Although a nontenured teacher is entitled to due process consideration of First Amendment claims, the mere assertion of such a constitutional claim does not convert the federal procedure into a plenary administrative review. Whether the plaintiff would have redress under Florida law in a state court is a question not before us. ( Dr. Kenneth Megill v, the Board of Regents of the State of Florida bolded for emp hasis) The AFT chose not to take the case to the Supreme Court for fear of it becoming national precedent. According to one of the leaders, this case "is one of the major legal foundations for the firing o f public employees to this day (Ryko 2008 ) Duri ng the time these legal battles were taking place (1973 76) the AFT hire d Megill to work on organizing faculty in Florida As a member of faculty, he had established himself as a member of the group he would eventually represent at UFF. As a professor of Marxist
27 philosophy and an ardent supporter of liberal social movements, he had established himself as someone willing to speak their personal truth no matter if it is contrary to accepted opinion in both the university and the larger society it is embedded in. Megill had fought a very personal and public battle with academic freedom and the tenure process. His onal authority rather than the authority sanctioned by institutions would empower him and lend credibility to h is future career as a union leader. Innovative Techniques s A crucial component of charismatic authority is employing innovative techniques in social movements. UFF, led by Ken Megill, ran the gamut of unique str ategies when trying to organize. Some of the strategie s were grounded in existing Florida legislature, such as the utilization of the Sunshine Laws to invite the media and faculty to attend meetings of the anti union Board of Regents. This served to make t he effort to organize a public one and also put pressure on the Board of Regents to bargain in good faith by the sheer number of faculty and organizers that would show up to these meetings. Other strategies were less vested in more traditional methods of g aining recognition by going through the legislature and instead relied on Ken Megill and other early or ganizers showing up at restaurants which members of the BOR just happened to be eating in or infusing bargaining sessions with hours of
28 filibustering w hen the BOR would not bargain in good faith. For example, when Cesar Naples (the representative of the BOR) w as not taking a balanced approach to contract negotiations Megill and other leaders at the bargaining table would begin talking about the phases o f the moon and other unrelated topics until good faith bargaining terms could be established ( Ryko 2008 ) A major challenge for early faculty unionization would actually give rise to UFF, and in the process, test these strategies. In 1974, when s tate legi slators were forced by the federal government to create statutory law to regulate collective bargaining, the Board of Regents (BOR) fought to have the bargaining unit set as the entire state university system (SUS). Union leaders believe d that the BOR made this determination because board members thought it impossible to organize the entire SUS (due to competition and isolation among the public universities) and hence it would be easier to defeat the certificatio n ballot (needed to certify a union as a bar gaining agent) At the time, there were nine state universities in the SUS, as the initial bargaining unit did not include community colleges Ken Megill knew organizing the entire SUS under one contract would be a challenge. An interviewee described a co nvers ation with Joe Chulack, from AF S C ME, and Richard Batchelder, from FEA to illustrate the initiation of UFF: Hey, you gotta organize the whole state Ken said, What? Joe said ell they just wrote into the law that the barg aining unit will be the state university system Ken looked at him and said, ou must be kidding me Joe said, ope Ken said, Joe said
29 unit be the entire state university system because they were positive nobody could organize the entire system first words to Joe, How many are there? And he said, 9? Ken said, Where are they? He said, I don going So Ken went back to see Batch and say, What do we do now? We have to organize the whole university system to be the entire SUS, we had to create a new entity and Ryko 2008 ) Ken Megill worked with Joe Chulak and many other already mobilized faculty, such as Roy Weatherford and Willis Truit, t o create UFF. They simultaneously attempt ed to build the local chapters at each university and also engage d in a drive to gather union representation and certification cards in all campuses. Essentially, the early founders of UFF were fighting a battle on two fronts then a highly unorthodox and innovate technique of organization. Certification cards are sign ed by faculty members and effectively authorize the bargaining agent to represent them at the bargaining table. In order to hold a representation election, you need a certain amount of certification cards signed by faculty. The amount is usually around 30% of faculty. Such cards hold the first logo for United Faculty of Florida, which contains the number 9 on it. The number nine was very prevalent in early attempt to stress to the faculty their interconnectedness with other state university faculty members despite the tendency for academia and academics to be fiercely independent. The newly minted United Faculty of Florida was the first faculty union to present its certification cards after the pass age of the P ublic E mployee R elations A ct. Ken Megill, along with other union leaders,
30 walked into the Public Employee Relations Board singing solidarity forever to file the registration papers. The The next step in establishing UFF was the ce rtification vote and that is where innovative techniques would really play a substantial role. The certification process took about two years, occurring between 1974 and 1976. During this time, UFF leaders, led by Ken Megill, tried to determine the shape of the bargaining unit. In doing so, they strategically structured the unit for maximum cohesiveness and effectiveness. UFF leaders contact ed the chapter presidents or leading organizers in the various campuses to get a sense of who was likely to vote for the union and who was not. The mobilization campaign allowed them to get a sense leanings and discern what percentage of the faculty in each of were likely to suppor t the union. T hey kne w for instance that the Unive rsity of Florida faculty in the agricultural, la w, and engineering programs would not supp ort unionization and they consequently sought to exclude them from the unit. Because the support varied from institution to institution, they propose d different ba rgaining units at excluded and included people on the basis of w ho we knew would vote for Ryko 2008 ). After two years of an inability to reach an agreement on the shape of the unit, the head o f the Public Employee Relations Board, Curtis Mack, called together the Board of Regents and United Faculty of
31 Florida and instructed them to make a deal. The organizer quote d above further notes: really weird inside UFF. [In] some camp uses the chairmen graduate assistant fight at that point, we eventuall y organized them separately ( Ryko 2008 ) T he BOR accepted unit, wittingly or unwittingly benefiting UFF. Despite varying speculation as to the reasons behind this concession, it is likely that i t was simply the political pressure to come relentless strategies With an agreement about the shape of the bargaining unit, the union and PERC call ed for the certification election in 1976 In Florida while the BOR a nd the university presidents ran a very vigorous anti union c ampaign, U FF ultimately won certification, but only by a narrow margin. innovative strategies came into play. Part of the struggle in contract negotiations had to do with representatives took a minimalist approach. They were having difficulty coming to an agree ment to include items other than wages into the negotiation. To put pressure on the BOR to broaden the scope of negotiations various strategies were employed by UFF These strategies were designed to make the bargaining meetings intolerable, publically hu miliate the Chancellor or the BOR, and otherwise use the Sunshine
32 Laws to make bargaining (usually a private process) a very public one. One of the UFF negotiators illustrates this: time with Cesar Naples, who was representing the BOR. And Jack starts talking, and he talks and he talks and he talks and he talks and he talks and then he turns to shown that wome n who work at night get attacked more often on nights of the women who have to work at night on n Now Cesar, ar e you ready to stop fuckin g around and Ryko 2008 ). A union leader offers a picture of another strategy: Under the sunshine law, collective bargaining is public, which is absolutely bring our members to bargaining and we got them to agree to move [the meetings] around the state. So we would hold bargaining sessions on different campuses and we would bring in all of our membership. And then we would bring in the press, ... basically w e I mean, there the board decided to give in. And Cesar came to Jack, because he was a professional, and said, okay how do we get out of this? And we had managed to organize the faculty by presenting the situation, of course that meant we could never give up anything, it was just a constant political rally. ( Smith 2008 ) Strategies such as these put pressure on t he BOR, taking an incredible amount of time and energy on both sides of the table. Eventually members of the BOR realized they needed to settle. They began to recognize that it was in their best interest to negotiate, rather than spend time and resources f Another innovative strategy utilized by Ken Megill was to follow and publicly embarrass important members of the SUS. At the time, t he Chancellor of the SUS was seeking financial support for the universities. He went on tours t hroughout Florida attempting to garner support from the
33 legislators and the public for further spending on higher education. UFF attended these public meetings and worked to thwart efforts exaggerated claims ab out how wonderful the universities were. Ultimately, the strategy coerced the Chancellor into bargaining; i t made more sense to work with UFF and rather than lose resources on fruitless opposition An early leader explains : The Chancellor of the SUS (I think it was Mollis) ran what we referred to as support for his case in the legislature for more money and he was doing this by going around the state and having these sort of town meeting formats where he would talk about all the great things that the university system provided to the local community and why it needed to be strengthened. [It was] a reasonable thing to do and a reasonable thing for his position to warrant him to do. Well, there was one of these presentations we showed up and asked embarrassing, difficult questions, and he was really pissed, but it was better to work within the pro cess than to ) Two other participants recount : One of the things that the administration kept doing was talking about how many faculty lines there were, and we knew they had a whole lot of administrators in faculty lines. Since we knew everybody, we were able to figure out just exactly who was on faculty li nes, so that became a prototype for doing that around the state. Well, we knew the state legislature would be very interested in this h, well th All the union newspapers, talked about how money t hat was supposed to go to teaching went to adm inistrators and stuff like (McCann, Kirk 2008 ). An agreement was finally reached and Ken Meg ill for UFF and Marshall Criser, the representative for the BOR who previously upheld are the signatories for the first UFF and BOR labor agreement. represent an important facet of his charismatic authority. This authority
34 would exert much influence on the structure and mission of UFF i n its early years.
35 V Organizational Culture Sociology often analyzes how social structures or frameworks inform and facilitate the behavior of leaders and organizations in different environments rganiza tional theory asserts that organizational culture plays an important role in shaping an organization Schein (2004) argues that if one can: demonstrate that a given set of people have shared a significant number of important experiences in the process of solving external and internal problems, one can assume that such common experiences in the process of solving external and internal problems, one can assume that such common experiences have led them, over time, to a shared view of the world around them a nd their place in it. Analyzing the history of UFF through print sources and inter views, I demonstrate that duri ng the formation of UFF, member s shared experiences, shared assumptions and val ues, and cohesive response to organizational threats led to the formation of an organizational culture. After detailing establish that organizational culture theory is an appropriate lens t hrough which t o view the early hist ory of United Faculty of Florid a I t hen assert that while aspects of organizational culture aided in survival and influenced the selection of early leaders, it eventually precipitated their downfall because of schisms within the culture and the inability (or lack of desire to) re pair schisms due to the fractionalization in the early 80s. Schein works to distinguish between the formal organization of a culture and the informal organization of a n formal organization is how the organization is visibly st ructured. For
36 example, in UFF during the first decade, the formal organization would involve the fact that UFF was a bargaining agent that represented the 9 state universities, with different officers in elected positions of power, and an affiliation with the AFT. However, the informal organization was equally important in the case of UFF. The informal organization consists of how each member was recruited, organized, and situated in relation to each other and their particular campus. Informal organization encompasses the reality of how an organization works and evolves by capturing the relationship between members and the relationship the members have in relation to the organization. Organizational culture can dictate how an organization is able to respon d to stressors and evolve in order to stay relevant and effective Schein argues that organizational cultures and the groups that form from omenon of cul ture is rea l and has Organizational culture theory examines observed behavioral regularities when people interact, the norms that evolve in working groups, the dominant values espoused by an organization, the philosophy customers, the rules of the game for getting along in the organization/ the ropes a newcomer must learn in order to become an accepted members, and the feeling or climate that is conveyed in an organization by the
37 physical layout and the way in which members of the organization interact with customers or other outsiders (Schein 2004). This conceptual framework is useful in understanding the formation of UFF I a rgue that United Facu lty of Flori da was viable as a union due to the shared culture of the involved faculty that facilitated organization efforts. United Facult the elements of organizational culture theory that work to help a young or ganization survive and eventually housed many of the tensions that led to the weakening of the organization espoused in organizational cultural theory. The term organizational culture can appear vague. However, in this context, I am using culture to represent the environment that is created when basic assumptions and beliefs are shared by members of an y size of social unit that has had the opportunity to learn and stabilize its view of itself and the environment ar ound it its basic assumptions (Schein 2004 ). Culture is created when these assumptions a nd beliefs operate in a subtle underlying capacity within an organization and ar e communicated to members of the organization by interactions between members, leade rs, and other social structures (Schein 2004 ) This suggest s that for an organizational culture to be considered a successful culture (that is, a culture that is able to su rvive) there is a sense of underlying shared values between the
38 members in terms of their views towards the group, each other, and the This set of shared values can also take the form of a shared goal. These values and goals c an come from a variety of places or experiences. The shared purpose behind from a set of shared experiences as faculty members in Florida at a tumultuous political and academic time. The shared experiences would s tart long before they became faculty in Florida. An overwhelming majority of the early union organizers and members were young faculty. All of my interview subjects were within a decade of graduate school when they began their participation in the faculty union movement. This is significant because it shows that new faculty members had all attended graduate school at some point during the late 1950s, 1960s, or early 1970s This period was a notoriously liberal and radical time for college campuses. The majo rity of interviewees stated that attending graduate school during this period had imbued in them a sense of activism that they would take with them to their faculty appointments. For instance, one interviewee asserts: W e were all post 60s, 60s people. So we came to the university, many of us came to the u niversity with a heightened political consciousness anyway. Our experience in the 60s was that those of us who were radicals in the 60s anti war people Kirk 2008 ). This activism would later work t o unite the faculty who were trying to organize and who viewed organizing the union as a natural extension of their college activism. The shared experience of being a young new
39 professor and recent graduate, hired by the largely conservative Florida unive rsity system, created a unique foundation for the faculty members who would come to be involved in UFF The idea of youth as a cohesive factor showed up in many interviews: I came to Gainesville when I was 26 years old. I taught Marxism and my dissertatio n was on Marx and I was recruited for that and I had be e n in E u r ope and was involved in the initial days of the student movement. I can remember the first day my god I was really worried whether people would know if I was the faculty member. So I made su re to always wear my tie (Ryko 2008 ) We were a very small campus. We knew everybody. It was a small campus, we were young. Just ( McCann 2008 ) Shared experiences resulted in shared norms for man y of the early UFF participants. Faculty members felt the need to express these shared norms in symbolic structures and physical o rganization. This is what would set the stage for UFF. University faculti es, as a profession, have often been stereotyped as left leaning intellectuals. This is true of all of my interviewees. They all self identified as some form of liberal, such as 8 ) or 6 ) Combine this pol itical grounding with the politically tumultuous time in which UFF was founded and you have a group of people who share many social and political values. These shared assumptions and values also help ed to facilitate a shared culture from which a group c oul d flourish. I found this to be particularly true of the interviewees from the traditionally conservative, older universities. While all the faculty I interviewed identified with the major social movements occurring during the 1960s and early 1970s, the fac ulty at the more
40 conservative universities (i.e University of Florida) had even more shared experiences because of what they felt was persecution by the administration based on their countercultural ideology This may be why University of Florida was the s econd school (and the first large state university) to organize, as the potential group members had even stronger shared experiences from which to form their group Florida f aculty members during the 1960s had enough shared experiences to assert that they had a common culture that encompassed norms, political ideology, and assumptions within the culture. It was from this strong sense of culture that a group was able to be formed. According to Schein (2004) y, shared fate, common occupation, common work experience, similar ethnic background participants had most (if not all) of these traits in common. Organizational culture framework posits that for a group to form successfully (where success is measured only by survival) it helps to be goal oriented and have a specific purpose (Schein 2004 ). While organizations clearly can exist without being goal oriented, Schein asserts that having a shared goal ca n help a diverse and large organization facilitate and maintain a sense of cohesion throughout the different branches. Clearly, organizing a union fits neatly into this requirement. The goal was to organize faculty under UFF representation and the purpose was to address faculty grievances as well as show solidarity with the larger labor movement.
41 For United Faculty of Florida (and indeed, for all groups) formation involved a balancing act between growth and maintenance of common purpose and maintenance o f interpersonal relationships in an evolving organization The earliest years united the faculty because they were working for a very straightforward goal to be able to be a bargaining union represented by UFF. T he desire to have UFF as the bar gaining agent for the multi campus system was the most important diverse faculty members could gather around; a faculty member could want unionization to air grievances about pay, workplace discrimination, tenure requirements, research loads, or even something as simple as faculty parking lots, yet a ll these issues could potentially be solved by havin g a bargaining agent. Early on, UFF was an organization that represented an array o f solutions to a large number of faculty members The early struggles to merely form UFF kept faculty working for a single cause. However, as I will detail later in this chapter, when the initial goal of establishing UFF as a bargaining agent was accomplis hed, interests and issues diversified and made it exponentially more difficult to keep the united front that is vital to group culture. Levels of Culture An important piece o f work on organizational culture is his notion of levels of culture. H e posits that culture can be analyzed according to different levels of depth. Schein asserts that t he three levels
42 of culture are artifacts, values, and the concept of espoused difficulties Artifacts are the constructed physical and social environments of an organization as well as the physical pieces of history than an organization creates (such as logos, newspaper articles, shirts and hats advertising the organizations, etc) sense of what ought to (Schein 2004). The concept of espou sed difficulties is the level of harmony between what leaders in an organization say they will do and what they actually end up doing, and the tension that difference crea tes. I will briefly go over each of these levels of culture and demonstrate how United Faculty of Florida exhibited each level, which in turn made it a strong organization. The first and most visible lev el of culture are its artifacts This has to be take n a little less literally when looking at UFF, as the organization was spread over the 9 state universities at the time and could not create a single environment. However, one can view the physical and social environment as the entire SUS As for the soci al aspect of artifacts, college campuses across Florida were growing at a rapid pace, bringing in more new faculty than ever, dealing with conserv ative and aging administrators, and coping with frequent denials of tenure on political grounds As an intervi ewee was just the last one. But there were many many people who were fired. It was just part of the Ryko 2008 ). While these factors
43 are not artifacts themselves, they contribute to the social environment on each campus and were important for the creation and formati on of United Faculty of Florida Other, more tangible, artifacts that helped to construct a successful narrative for UFF were the logos, the newspaper articles, the co urt cases, and other items that were able to be seen, read, and reviewed. These very real artifacts work to strengthen a potentially weak group. UFF as a group may have been prone to weakness because it was made of very independent professors in a w idely d ispersed environment (all nine state universities). Yet physical and social artifacts were so visible that they motivating elements to organize around. The next level of culture can be referred to as values. W already established that many faculty members espoused a similar value system due to shared experiences values as a level of culture is a more subtle concept The values of the early participants of UFF were spelled out during their organization efforts and it was their shared value system that lent them strength in the face of extraordinary odds. These values, as identified by interviewees, were the beliefs that workers needed protection, th at th e Vietnam War was unjust, th at th e union could help faculty with a variety of issues, and that it was important to participate in the social movements at the time. Another value was the importance of showing solidarity with fired faculty members as well as the larger labor movemen t.
44 3 years. But it was not so much the union activity. The union was seen as the protector of that, of being able t ). In fact, there was kind of a anti labor maybe even anti working class, certainly anti labor, kind of cast to that movement in the 60s because they were largely of the Vietnam War and so we were really embarking on something that was kind of new to us philosophically. W e liked associating with the Dade Federation of Labor, with the McCann 2008 ). T he earliest years of organizing were filled with professors getting fired or denied tenure for reasons the faculty did not agree with, p ay rais es that did not happen and professors who wanted their own way to show support of the labor and left movements. This all lead to a unified values system that allowed diverse and spread out faculty to unionize under one organization. What is most interesti ng to me is when a charismatic leader, in this case Ken Megill, is able to transfer his/her unique values to the group. Megill valued speaking his mind freely (however unpopular his views) willingness to fight university administration in the face of inju stice, and supporting the labor movement during this time. While during the early years of UFF, the later years brought clashes between the values of the leadership and the values of the members. I will detail th is deterioration later in the chapter Organizational Structure as an Eventual Downfall Of the three levels of culture that Schein outlines, the one that UFF struggled with in the late 1970s and early 1980s is referred to as espoused values. Argyis and Sch sed values
45 as a concept which predict s deviation between declared ideology and actual operations. In its earliest years, UFF had a high level of cohesion, fulfilling promises it made to its fledgling membership base I believe that this is because during the first years of organization, all members had a common goal and a common threat. The common goal was a successful representation election and the common threat was a vocal BOT, BOR, and administration. The earliest y ears of forming a union are also the years where the steps are the clearest. In order to form a successful union, the organization must be certified, a bargaining unit must be decided on, and then a contract has to be certified. All this must occur in that particular order. So when union leaders at UFF told the members that they were going to win the certification election, they worked towards that goal and eventually met it and so on and so forth U nion leaders were able to meet the goals that they articu lated in the organization. There was a harmony between what needed to be done, what was promised, and what was accomplished. However, after UFF won the representation election and received bargaining rights, the goals began to diversify throwing the ado lescent union into an existential crisis The issues which had been buried deep in the solidarity of the initial movement now had to be dealt with by union leadership. The leadership that rallied while the u nion was fighting for survival wa s now the leader ship responsible for making difficult decisions. The choices made by union leadership at this time were not supported by
46 every member of the union and this led to some members, including multiple interviewees, to assert that there was a disconnect between action and rhetoric within UFF during the period of the late 1970s and early 1980s. A clear example of this is the affiliation switch of 1981 UFF had affiliated with the AFT and AFL CIO because of their strong ties to the larger labor commun ity. Union president Ken Megill had always been incredibl y vocal about his support for the labor community. However, in 1981, Megill disaffiliated with t he AFT and switched to the NEA, which was largely viewed as a professional organization rather than a l abor organization. One interviewee posited that, Megill happened to leave UFF for a position at N EA lat 2008 ) Quotes such as this one demonstrat e that members of the organization had believed the leadership stood for one value but ended up espousing a contrarian value. This discord weaken ed the union because of the tension it create d w ithin the organization. External/Internal Issues United Faculty of Florida was the group that capitalized on the faculty culture and dedicated organizers in Florida in the late 1960s and early 1970s T he external conditions of the period facilitated fac ulty
47 years. However, internal discord during the end of the 1970s and beginning of the 1980s would ultimately weaken the union. ed by group members. It is this perception of the real world by the group that lends world. The external reality allows members to form cohesive mission statements, similar goals for the organization, and find the means to obtain crucial to union formation because it is this friction that gener ate s the strong emotional reactions and the strengthening of a value system (that is in opposition to a perceived external value system) that allows groups to fal s e reasons, denied s tudents the right to protest peacefully, and generally espoused conservative values. For example, t one point the students occupied one of the largest auditoriums and the police in Gainesville had been outfitted with tanks, with riot gear, very sophistic ated. police were going to clear them out and I went in and we had the union which had about twenty or thi rty members at the time and we formed a line between the police and the students and I went in and gave I think my best speech ever. I basicailly said, one of the things we know that we had been taught, and we always referred to the Vietnamese at that po int, is when to fight and when to leave and now is the time to leave. And the entire group of, I was negotiating at that time with the president of the student b It was very direct and the police was there and the university attorney was there and we knew he was in with the police and they actually started charging at one point and I said Stop. And they stopped. And the faculty was between them. That WAS the union and I remember one of the nice liberal faculty member s tore up his faculty cards. That was the amazing thing they stopped. The lawyer said What the fuck are you doing are co ).
48 This external reality for the faculty at UF w as that the university infringed and to dissent. The faculty felt that speaking their truth was at odds with the external reality. These factors allowed faculty to produce the amoun t of emotional investment necessary to unionize successfully against such substantial odds. The internal world was just as important in the formation of UFF as the external world. The internal world is comprised of the relationships between the members o f the group. For positive internal interactions, an organization must have a common vocabulary and conceptual categories, group boundaries and criteria for inclusion and exclusion, rewards and punishments, power and status, and ideology (Schein 2004 ). Simi lar to the external category UFF exhibited high levels of internal strength during the earliest s straightforward goals lent themselves to a common language ( centered on win ning the representation election and bargain i ng a successful contract) and shared values (to speak their truth despite its unpopularity at the time). The s common language worked to empower and protect faculty (and even students) Yet this internal cohesiveness faded as the decade went on .The common language got muddied after the union was well established and different groups began to want different things from their local union, instead of simply wanting recognition for the ba rgaining agent at a state
49 level Ken Megill, recently denied tenur e at UF and on th e losing side of a court battle, had worked incredibly hard to organize UF and was without a job. He became the president of UFF because he needed it and it needed him; this was the consensus among all my interviewees. However, as his pres idency wore on, according to some of my interviewees there was tension as some members felt he had become the de facto leader because he had n o teaching job to return to. P eople did not want to be responsible for snubbing the man who gave so much of his t ime and resources to unionizing faculty, even if they believed he had conflicts of interests that affected his job performance and had stayed as president too long for their liking. For example, for wanting me to take over as Presi dent was that he felt somebody has to take this movement and t I that everybody trusts because at the time we had a serious fractionalizat ion unified organization. But Megill was one of those strong personalities that tended to inspire either deep commitment or complete hatred and by that time many members felt he had s tayed too long Smith 2008 ). Internal power dynamics became increasingly complex as the goals of the union diversified. Another interviewee asserted that the f r actionalization charismatic leadership losing ap peal once the union did not have to fight as hard for survival. sided stubbornness worked wonders when UFF was just getting going but ended up making people feel like he was running the whole show after Kirk 2008 ). Stages A crucia l component to organizational culture framework is the idea of stages or different eras, of an organization. This posits that an
50 organizati on is not a stagnant entity, instead going through three recurring stages: birth, middle age, and dissolution (Schei n 2004). UFF, as touched upon earlier in the chapter, experienced a very strong initial growth phase in the face of adversity, a midlife phase after certification, and even a decline or reevaluation stage that was marked by the switch from AFT to NEA affi liation. The first stage of an organization is the birth and early growth stage. This stage begins with potential members united over shared experiences will be on differentiating oneself from the env ironment and from other groups ( Schein 2004 ) This differentiation is particular ly important when 1974 UFF had to run against two other bargaining agents the AAUP and NEA as well as a no representation option. UFF had the dual task of appealing to faculty to unionize as well as to unionize with UFF as their representation. UFF had to not only differentiate themselves from the status quo of no faculty union but als o from other organizations within the labor movement. In t his early stage a charismatic strength are most important. UFF was able to positively differentiate itself in large part because of Ken Megill. Since he was n ot employed at any university he had the luxury of time on his side. Differentiation, for UFF, required g ood grassroots organizing ; this process takes an incredible amount of time and Ken Megill had the ability to travel from campus to
51 campus, espousing his values and dreams for UFF, and building up the momentum necessary for a union to succeed in such adverse circumstances. After bargaining rights were won, UFF entered what Schein refers to as the cultural midlife. This is the sigh of relief organizational form. Surviv al has been achieved and ensured for at least some length of time, and the organization no longer has a need to fiercely establish and build its culture. For UFF, I would classify its midlife as occurring from 1978 until about 1981. The right to unionize a nd bargain had been established but relative complacency would produce new problems for UFF Most notable amongst these problems was the issue of fractionalization within UFF; of members who liked affiliating with the more labor oriented AFT and members who felt the AFT w as attempting to push UFF leadership out of t he organization. This tension would break down along the lines of internal leadership. It would be the fractionalization of people who thought Megill should run unopposed as president as long a s he wanted and members who felt they were being forced to support a president owerful subcultures will have developed and a highly integrated culture is difficult to mai ntain in a large, differentiated, geographically dispersed organization (Schein 2004). UFF was certainly a large, differentiated and geographically dispersed organization and while it continued to bargain and be the unionization representative of the fac ulty,
52 its numbers began declining (see table) as it had trouble adapting to its midlife context (Schein 2004 ). United Faculty of Florida Membership Figures in the SUS Year Membership %Change 1968 40 1971 97 1972 142 +46% 1973 194 +37% 1974 409 +111% 1975 752 +84% 1976 1009 +34% 1977 1383 +37% 1978 1597 +15% 1979 1515 5% 1980 1459 4% 1981 1439 1% 1982 1309 9% Sources: Internal union documents archived at the University of Central Florida l ibrary This takes us into the third phase of UFF. First, i t is important to looking only at the first deca hus, I am looking for the three stages within this decade and no t over the entire true test of whether the organization is able to survive in the long term is if it is able to cope and adjust to the change s In some ways UFF did this effectively, yet in others it faltered.
53 While there was increasing tension between some members regarding the extended presidency of Ken Megill, perhaps the most definitive example of the dissolution of early UFF is the switch from AFT affiliation to NEA affiliation. Speaking to the nuance and cyclical nature labor union, yet also represented its birth in a new form, as a professional association. As discussed earlier in the thesis, UFF was affili ated with AFT. This affiliation occurred for varying reasons according to my interviews. Some faculty stress that AFT was the organization that provid ed the best deal financially (i. e dues) for the fledgling UFF and other faculty simply remark that AFT wa s at the right place at the right time and was willing to offer organizational help, which i s what UFF needed at the time. However, a fairly consistent thread in many of my interviews was the AFT was the labor choice. It was the choice most closely associ ated with the labor movement and held the belief that NEA was viewed by my interviewees as an association of professionals whereas AFT folk 6 ) This was very important to the early organizers of UFF as they valued their identity as laborers and not just professionals. (Interview 6) walked into the PERB Solidarity UFF switched affiliations from AFT to NEA in 1981 sending huge waves
54 through the membership. In an interv iew, a union leader said the switch was appropriate because AFT at the time was a deeply corrupt organization tha t did not actually care about UFF or its survival. In a separate interview, a pair of professors assert ed that while the AFT may have been corrupt, it was still an important part of their union identity and they felt betrayed by the switch. Still another i nterviewee said that the union leader at the time switched affiliations because he knew his time as a president was coming to a close and the NEA had offered him a position member res igned his membership in part due to this switch. The union leader at the time still stands by this decision My interviewees were split evenly on their feelings on the switch, and their reactions were strong in both directions The union was changing and l earning to cope, however it
55 V I Affiliations in the Union When unionization occurs, national organizations often step in to compete to represent the new union. It is important to note that these rather organizations that can work through local affiliates to help organize local unions. These local affiliates serve as the collective bargaining agent for the local union (Wagner 2003 ). The national organizations have often been viewed as carrying quite a bit of union baggage ; some of this baggage works for the local union while some may work against. N ational organizations are often able to provide monetary and organizing resou rces and skills that local unions would be unable to raise themselves. Especially in very anti union climates, national organizations leveled the playing field against boards and administrations (Gordon 2000 ). In addition, national organizations can have a much more powerful voice in the state and federal legislatures (Burgan 2006 ). However, the negative side of this issue is that power is not immune to corruption or political influence that could negatively affect the smaller and more vulnerable associated unions. It is important to note that these relationships are not stagnant. As demonstrated by UFF, a national organization can start off as an aid to a more localized organization but can eventually come to be viewed as a hin drance. As I will detail later in this chapter, UFF experienced many ups and downs in its relationships
56 with national organizations and the se tumultuous relationships shaped UFF throughout its first decade. By 1975, a third of public sector employees wer e organized, moment and for some time to come (Rhodes 1977) When faculties in higher education turned to unionism, they invoked a conceptual model that had little in common with the con ception of a faculty as a rarified and privile ged group (Arnold 2000 ). The significance of this is fairly substantial. Faculty, as a group, have often been portrayed as professionalized and holding a high level of governance in the workplace. However, the very act of pursuing unionization questions the security they have because they are considered a professionalized workforce Unionization brings into focus what level of governance they felt they should have versus the level of governance they actually did have. Faculties looked to national organizations to cater to their needs, which included grievances and concerns entirely unique to the faculty position. The three main national organizations in faculty unionization are the American Association for U niversities Professors, the American Federation of Teachers, and the National Education Association. The AAUP is the oldest of the three organizations and grew the slowest during the 1970s. The AFT grew the most rapidly during the 1970s and was the only f aculty union that followed a traditional labor union model. The NEA was the middle ground; a mix of professionals and unions ethos (Rhode
57 1977 ). Despite their differences and downfalls, these groups were vital to dramatic successes in unionizing faculties in both four year and two year institutions were greatly facilitated by the existence and efforts of these groups (Arnold 2000 ). Since each national had such a unique reputation, the demographic that was able to be unionized was widened. Professors at more research oriented universities were able to find support in the AAUP while organizations like UFF, whose impetus for unionization was rooted in radical politics, were able to find support with AFT. As I will de tail in this chapter, each of these agents has unique characteristics and each has exerted unique (and often contentious) influence on the faculty unionization movement. In the same vein, the traits of the faculties or schools can (perhaps unknowingly) cha nge which context effects of location and type of school appear to be the major determinants of what type of organization a professor will join; his or her options are defined and set b y the character of the college and its socio political environment (Rhodes 1977 ). In other words, the environment of the national organization and the environment of the campus weigh equally upon which organization will represent any particular school. W hat does this mean for United Faculty of Florida? United Faculty of Florida is a unique case. It competed against national organizations to be the representative for faculty in the state of Florida. It then chose to
58 affiliate with both the AFT and Florida Education Association, which was an affiliate of the NEA. For United Faculty of Florida, the national affiliations it chose to associate with over the first decade deeply impacted the members, what they tried to accomplish, and the lens with which they vie wed faculty unionization. UFF affiliated with the American Federation of Teachers, which was affiliated with the American Federation of Labor. The AFT was viewed (both by the union organizers and by larger society) as the labor choice amongst the nationals AFT provided close ties with other labor associations and viewed itself as a leftist labor leader. This was crucial for organizers at UFF, as they were organizing for ideological reasons as much as (if not more than) for practical reasons. Their organiza tion was not only to safeguard themselves against conservative administrations and budget cuts, but also worked to establish these faculty members firstly as laborers and only then as academics. National Education Association The National Education Associ ation stresses that it is just that an association. This stands in contrast to emphasizing its labor union ties. Its first attempt at a higher education component was started in 1870 and remained one of professional enhancement and not labor organization (Wagner 2003 ). However, with the dramatic increase of faculty unionization in the late 1960s and early 1970s and the success of the
59 American Federation of Teachers, the NEA soon came to function as if it were a labor union. In 1968, it began to organize teachers for collective bargaining and promoted de facto strikes to achieve its ends (Arnold 2000 ). It formed the National Society of Professors to lead its higher education organizing ef forts. NEA membership grew by 400,000 between 1974 and 1976, though overall membership in American labor organizations declined by 767,000, or 3.8 percent, in that same two year 1978 ). This snippet shines light into the idea that while me mbership in labor unions as a whole was decreasing, the legislation and the growing field of professors encouraged union growth despite the larger trend of union decline. As far as image and demographic, the NEA was seen as less militant and less radical than the AFT. This was an important distinction for some faculty The NEA was thus able to appeal to faculty not only based on its size and strength but its pr ofessional association identity, Rhodes has conducted an in depth analysis of the voting patterns of faculty vis a vis particular national organization s He found that t he NEA membership during the 1970s was largely drawn from the mor e conservative facul ty (Rhodes 1977) In addi tion, the membership was largely drawn from instructors and lecturers without Ph.Ds who had grad u NEA tended to be the bargaining agent for universities where the schoo l of
60 education was particularly large. It was a popular choice of bargaining agent in two year public institutions everywhere except the South. It was underrepresented as a bargaining agent in private universit ies although Rhodes argues that this was beca use the field of education at many private universities is not represented adequately. All of the interviewees remarked that NEA was not right for U FF at the time of its founding because it was too conservative or too The AFT was a union in the AFL CIO fro m the beginning, the NEA was a professional educators association dominated by administrators and politically pretty conservative. So you had the NEA on the right and AFT on the left. And This is intere sting because faculty is often viewed as a professionalized workforce. As a professionalized workf orce if they were to unionize at all, they would unionize with the professional association. However, UFF viewed itself as a labor group and thus viewed the professional group as too conservative to represent them. American Federation of Teachers Of the three major national organizations for faculty unions only the American Federation of Teachers is modeled after a traditional labor union and is considered the most militant about labor issues. It was established in 1916 and immediately sought to establish its ties to labor by choosing a name similar to the American Federation of Labor (Rhodes 1977 ). It has a collectivist rhetoric that often appealed to facul ty at schools that already had adversarial relationships with the Boards of Trustees and
61 the Administration and felt as though they were powerless on campus (Wagner 2003 ). The AFT focused not only on organizing teachers (especially in public schools) but also often took stances and engaged in a variety of liberal political and social issues. It would be this willingness to uphold liberal ideas on a slew of issues during the late 1960s and early 1970s that would attract UFF to the AFT. It should be noted that a common criticism of the AFT is that their focus on social and political issues can drain resources making the organization unable to pay sufficient attention to who/what they are trying to organize regarding higher education (Rhodes 1977 ). However, n one of my interviewees felt as though the AFT spent too much time on political issues other than unionization. The AFT grew rapidly during the 1960s and early 1970s. Of the NEA, AAUP, and AFT, it was the AFT that had the most success organizing large mu lti campus university systems, such as New York and Florida. When the BOR decided that Florida had to be organized under a single contract for the nine state universities, the AFT seemed to be the natural choice as it was the only national that had success with organizing large multi campus university systems. United Federation of Teachers, won a massive collective bargaining election and within five years had set up a department just to deal with organizing higher educa tion as it became legal (Arnold 2000 ). From 1974
62 choosing an agent, the AFT grew from 444,000 to 446,000 when traditional labor unions were experi encing declines in membership ( O Reilly 1978 ). AFT had the most success in Florida, New York, and Illinois. Their success was focused on public four year colleges (Rhodes 1977 ). This forest of factors would prove highly attractive for the United Faculty of Florida. UFF was made up of radical fa culty (all working for public universities) that wanted to demonstrate solidarity with all laborers and the AFT was a radical labor oriented union that was growing exponentially during this time period. Lewis Rhodes has also characterized the type of prof essor which tended to join the AFT during the 1960s and 1970s finding it to be a fairly mixed group. Still, some trends can be observed. While the AFT attracted less conservative faculty, the professors tended to be in the lower ranks (not tenured) and we re slightly less likely to have a doctorate than non unionized schools. However, they tended to be younger and from a as doctorat e degrees were just being introduced as requirements for faculty in the fledgling hiring massive amounts of younger (un tenured) faculty from top notch graduate schools. It is importan t to note again that Ken Megill and Roy Weatherford, two of the earliest organizers, were both untenured young professors from Yale and Harvard, respectively.
63 T he organized labor model of the AFT has offered unique advantages as well as disadvantages to h igher education faculty. The liberal (sometimes characterized as radical) ideology often attracted younger faculty, which was quite important in states like Florida where the number of faculty was growing nearly exponential ly and younger faculty were being employed at a high rate. Also, an interviewee remarked that the close ties to the labor community in the greater Miami area made her feel as though she belonged to something bigger than academia or a professional union (Interview 7) She articulated that the AFT community would often be welcomed by the more traditional labor union locals (electricians, plumbers, etc) and this created a very strong and attractive community in which to live. On the other hand, the radical politics of the AFT often ostracized older and/or more conservative faculty and could factionalize the faculty more severely than the other two national organizations. American Association of Universities Professors The last of the three organizations, the American Association of Universit ies Professors, peaked relatively early and while it expanded in the 1960s and 1970s, it did not do so quite as quickly as the AFT and NEA. It is the only organization of the three which focuses entirely on organizing higher education. The AAUP was founde spent most if its history explicitly rejecting a trade union model for faculty institutional arrangements (Arnold 2000 ). The AAUP handbook from
64 1964 states that they are not a union but i nstead they view themselves as custodians of edu cation ( American Association Universi Handbook). Custodians, they go on to assert, are interested in collegial relations instead of adversarial relations Instead of modeling itself as a trade union, the AAUP worked to put forth guidelines and suggestions for faculty employment. The AAUP believed at the time that professional conditions of work (Burgan 2006 ). One way to understand the distinction between these national organizations is that while the AFT worked to fix grievances directly, the AAUP instead put forth suggestions that they thought (if followed) would alleviate the need for a grievance process. The AA UP issued suggestions and guidelines on academic freedom, tenure, and a range of other faculty issues. Perhaps the most (in)famous of these guidelines would be the surveys of the 1950s (Arnold 2000 ). The salary surveys enabled faculty in any discipline, any state, and at public/private colleges to compare their salary with the national average as well as averages broken down by field and location. This is largely considered the impetus for organiz ing faculty who consequently realized they we re being paid well below the national average for their rank and discipline. The AAUP moved to organize higher education in 1972. It had about 97,000 members before the vote on collective bargaining an within a
65 year their membe rship had dropped by 10,000 (Arnold 2000 ). The remaining members tended to be tenured full professors with PhDs from highly rated graduate schools. Faculty members from the humanities or social sciences were overrepresented and research centered universities also tended to affiliate with the AAUP. The AAUP was also overrepresented in private four year colleges (Rhodes 1977 ). United Faculty of Florida Faculty organization in Florida had a lot of different factors that made it a unique case. It had to be organized as a multi campus system instead of a single campus. It is a right to work state, which often weakens unionization motivation. Combine these two factors with a largely conservative administration and a growing radical faculty, and you h ave an interesting fight for a bargaining agent. So how did all these potentially limiting factors make a state that was able to unite the national organizations, even if for a short while? abo ( Smith 2008 ). To a fledgling UFF, affiliations were everything and nothing. Affiliations could support a local and destroy a local in one fell swoop. UFF experienced positive and negative relationships with both organizations it chose to affiliate with over its first decade.
66 Brevard Community College and University of Florida had already organized and affiliated with the Americ an Federation of Teachers. UF was Local 1880 and Brevard was Local 1847. Richard Batchelder was the executive secretary of the Florida Education Association, which was an affiliate of the National Education Association. The union at UF was a fledgling orga nization working at an off campus church. In 1973, the fledging Florida union at UF called AFT and asked for support in starting a union. Richard Batchelder approached Ken Megill while Megill was working for the union at UF. Batchelder expressed interest i n bringing all the organizations together and at the same time including teachers at all levels. This planted the seed for the major goals of what would become the United Faculty of Florida. At that point, Batchelder was based in Tallahassee and gave the recently fired Ken Megill an office in the FEA building. Together they hire Dick Hixson, who had been previously employed by the AFT, which was already bridging a gap in union ideologies. Dick Hixson became the first staff member for what would become Unit ed Faculty of Florida. Pete Boespflug was hired as the Public Relations person for FEA and together they set out to organize while affiliating with the AFT and NEA. Jack Samit was also brought in to help organize the universities at this point. Jack Samit was a professional field staffer from the AFT who had worked on many organization campaigns prior to UFF.
67 During the election campaign, United Faculty of Florida associated with both FEA and AFT. However, the national NEA was not of Florida. The NEA threatened to kick FEA out of the national implied that you could affiliate with any national organization. The FEA loyalists started a new NEA affiliate called the Florida Teaching Profession/NEA. In multiple interviews, the early UFF leaders stressed it was the bridging of the FEA and AFT that lent strength to UFF. It was using the resources and politics of both, despite the national organizations reluctance to partner with each other. However, the formerly conservative f The idea of elected leaders was very important to early organizers of UFF. The fact that the NEA began to hold elections and staff itself with teachers caught the attention of UFF. An interv iewee remarked: early 70s, the teachers took over the NEA and started moving toward collective bargaining. At the same time, Al Shanker, the president of the AFT and George Mini, the president of the AFL CIO, were calling a course that Megill used to call social democracy, that is they were economically liberal and supported the working class but on social issues such as integration, the war in Vietnam in particular, they tended to support the administration. Meanwhile, the NEA under the control of the teachers was moving to the left, and so sometime around the middle of the 70s or so, the two crossed and the nea became more liberal than the AFT. But we wer ).
68 This resulted in the NEA becoming viewed as a more libera l organization. At the same time, the AFT had the strength of the labor movement but was outright support for the Vietnam War. This left early UFF organizers in a quandary of who to affilia te with. NEA was run by the people it represented, AFT was labor oriented, but neither spoke completely to the agenda of the early UFF organizers An interviewee stressed that nationa l organizations, we cared about ourselves, organizing ourselves and local control. The function of the national organization was toe help us b ut not to run Ryko 2008 ). The lack of attention to the fledgling Florida organization brought the Ken Megil l and Richard Batchelder to the conclusion that they had to create a new organization in order to be successful on the ground in such an anti union state. Many of the early organizers at UFF felt as though the very reluctantl Ryko 2008 ). In 1974, a founding convention was held to commemorate the founding of United Faculty of Florida. After the public bargaining law was passed, UFF began circulating cards in an attempt to hold a representation election. The NEA and the AAUP ran against United Faculty of Florida in the representation election. The NEA/AAUP nationals joined the election campaign late and UFF already had quite a bit of mome ntum. UFF won the election and won it without a runoff. This means that UFF won a majori
69 and NEA combined. After hearing the results, a party was held and an interviewee relays this story, the ele ction results were in and said, Are you having a party? And he says, ou must be popping champagne This became the quote that was on the front page of every newspaper in Florida, was at me. So, I mentioned all that, the point of all this was, that being apart of the labor movement was the reason we succeeded and other people did not ( Ryko 2008 ). This anecdote makes clear the importance which early organizers placed on being perceived as laborers. Thus, unionization is not challenging as academics but instead embracing their role as workers. It is this belief and this reality that made unionization possible for faculty in Florida. with Ken Megill. The BOT would be represented by Cesar Naples. The Switch s A pivotal time for UFF was when they decided to leave AFT and associate with the NEA. UFF had been founded on the idea that expressing what you thought to be a truth (such as speaking out for the Civil Rights movement or defending your class on Marx) we re important even if they did challenge the status quo. UFF had affiliated with the AFT because the truth of the AFT, as viewed by early organizers of UFF, was that it was part of a larger labor movement that faculty in UFF felt they were apart of. Howeve r as the AFT became more socially conservative and the NEA elected far more positions (in a more transparent manner)
70 than the AFT, the relationship between UFF and the national began to dissolve rapidly. The switch was very important for UFF and while som e leaders sympathized with the switch, a lot of the more labor affiliated faculty felt as though they had lost an important connection the the labor community. In the long run, it undermined confidence in Ken Megill. Ken Megill and Roy Weatherford attended the AFT convention in 1981. Weatherford spoke against increased defense spending on the floor of the convention. The leadership still pa ssed the motion and the ideological differences between UFF began to become more apparent. The AFT had presidential ele ctions and Weatherford did not want to vote for Al Shanker, who was the current president. An interviewee detailed said president of the union will know that you voted your 600 vote s against the o I held my nose and vot Smith 2008 ). The AFT had taken over locals in Washington D.C and Newark, New Jersey and there was a sense among UFF leadership that UFF would be the next to be taken over. Upon returning to Florida, at a meeting of the state affiliate FEA United, Pat Turnillo announced that he was attempting or organize a local at Miami Dade Community College. UFF had the right to organize all th e higher education people in Florida and thus viewed this move by Pat Turnillo as undermining UFF. This would be the deciding factor in leaving the AFT. It was a hard decision because for Megill and Weatherford, as well as other union members I interviewe d, it was taking
71 a step away from the labor movement. Their identification with the labor movement had been one of the major impetuses for organizing in the first place. They disaffiliated with the AFT, spent less than a year as an independent organization and negotiated affiliation terms with the NEA. e spent a year as an independent and we were just considering affiliation with the NEA and Ken said, Angeles Joe Chulak was our first staff person and the three of us drove across the country. The terms of the affiliat ion were negotiated and UFF became NEA Smith 2008 ) The NEA refused to let UFF pay reduced dues, which AFT was allowing them to do as Florida is a right to work state, but the NEA did dec ide to UFF. The switch left many members feeling as though UFF leadership did not represent them, and t his feeling was compounded when Ken Megill left UFF as president after the merger and took a position with the NEA as a staff member. In the end, the affiliations UFF chose to make both helped and hurt reduced dues which is most likely the primary reason it was able to survive the first crucial years in a right to work state. However, the AFT AFT was becoming more socially conser vative than the majority of members in the UFF, it was decided to switch affiliations. The switch left many members remorseful over their lost ties to the labor world but the
72 NEA provided an increased budget without the strings of an outspoken political a genda attached.
73 VI I Conclusion In the 1960s, p ublic employee legislation was being passed at the state and federal level leaving the door wide open for faculty unionization. Faculty unionization took different s hapes according to the different contextual conditions and challenges in different states and in Florida, it was up against particularly substantial odds. Yet a number of factors gave faculty members the strength, innovation, and motivation to pursue facu lty unionization until UFF was ratified as the state wide faculty bargaining agent in 1976. The youth and politics of Florida faculty members can be attributed to the exponential growth in numbers of both students and professors at the universities during the 1960s. Due to this growth, faculty were hired straight out of graduate school bringing with them a sense of social justice that would attach itself to the labor ideals behind faculty unionization. The early commitment to their personal truth imbued the organization efforts with a s trength that can only come from personal moral and emotional conviction s In a less ideological and more practical viewpoint, the 1970s brought tightening budgets, increased deficits and no salary increases for the faculty. universities were repeatedly asked to cut budgets, which meant bringing in more part time faculty and denying pay raises for faculty across the board. This combined with the social unrest on campus, the perceived threats to academic freedom, as well as the conservative
74 administrations and BORs would be the primary causal factors for faculty unioniz ation. In order for a social movement to triumph over such steep odds, a charismatic leader needs to be willing to take the reins of an org anization and thus imbue the organization with a sense of purpose and innovation. Ken Meg ill was that leader for UFF and was able to pursue what he thought was right instead of what was deemed socially appropriate at the time. UFF was able to group togeth er because of the common goals, shared experiences, and common perceived threat s of its external environment The national organizations, for the first decade, were able to put politics aside and lend support to a union that never should have been viable d ue to its small size in a Southern right to work state. The case of UFF is an incidence of the right factors coming into play at the right time. Ultimately however, United Faculty of Florida is an organization whose strength s eventually became its weaknes s es While it was originally able to organize due to charismatic leadership, a common goal, affiliation decision s, and organizational culture in time the careful coincidence of facilitating factors would fall apart The charismatic leader overstayed his w elcome the national affiliation overstepped boundaries in a power grab, and the common sense of purpose that united the group culture and structure would dissolve into a plethora of issues that served to weaken the union.
75 Appendix Pseudonym of Interview ee Demographic Information Mark Ryko A white male in his late 60s. He was involved in the union from the beginning and served in a high level elected position. He is responsible success. He is no longer involved. Evan Smi th A white male in his late 60s. He was involved from the beginning, had a direct hand in organizing the early union, and served in a high level elected position. He is still involved today. Sean McCann A white male in his early 60s. He was involved from the early 1970s and is still involved in UFF today. He helped to organize his campus as well as other state campuses. Nancy Kirk A white female in her early 60s. She was involved from the early 1970s and is no longer involved in United Faculty of Florida today. She was very active in her campus local but less active on the state wide scale.
76 Works Cited American Association of Universit y Professor. American Association of University Professor's Handbook Brochure. New York: Author, 1974. Argyis, C and D. Schon Organizational Learning: A Theory of Action Perspective New York: McGraw Hill, 1978. Arnold, Gordon B. The Politics of Facult y Unionization: The Experience of Three New England Universities Westport: Berin and Garvey, 2000. Berger, Peter L. "Charisma and Religious Innovation: The Social Location of the Israelite Prophecy." American Sociological Review December 28 (1963): 40 50 Botsch, Robert E. "Interest Groups in South Carolina." The South Caroline Governance Project The University of South Carolina. 01 Nov. 2008
77 Dr. Kenneth A. Megill v. Board of Regents of the State of Florida. No. 74 3273. Fith Circuit Court of Appeals. 1 Nov. 1976. Duryea, E. D and Robert S. Fisk. Faculty Unions and Collective Bargaining San Francisco: Jose y Bass, 1973. Fiorito, Jack and S. Bruce The Devolution of United Faculty of Florida 11 Nov. 2008. Florida State University. "Florida Law Online: Supreme Court Cases." 8 June 2001. 9 Feb. 2009
78 O'Reilly, Robert C. Understanding Collective Bargaining in Education: Negotiations, Contracts, and D i s putes between Teachers and Boards Metuchen: The Scarecrow P, 1978. Parsons and Talcott. The Social System Glencoe: Free P, 1951. Rhodes, A. L. "Some Characteristics of Faculty Union Memberships and Their Implications." Social Problems April 23 (1977): 463 68. "Right to Work for Less." AFL CIO: America's Union Movement Apr. 2002. 01 Nov. 2008