Janus decision makes university unions rethink approach

The recent Supreme Court’s Janus decision, which bars public sector unions from forcing non-union members to pay “fair share” fees, has many implications for different unions, but has specific and unique implications for academic faculty.

The union demand for “fair share” is based on the exclusive role the union has on negotiating contractual salaries and terms of service. The exclusive role of faculty union in acting on the behalf of all faculty provides major advantages for incoming faculty. Those include protection as they work toward tenure and after tenure what are often long, secure careers with benefits. The shared agreements also provide protections for individual faculty and academic units, in which they work.

Established unions and union authority provide administrators and managers with shared decision making. Shared governance implies there is shared decision making on key management and policy decisions.

In academic institutions where universities derive their value and stature from the work of professors — often outside of the university but which bring added value to the university — shared governance is not only about problem solving but includes visioning.

As they secure exclusive representative authority over their members, unions themselves develop internal values and politics not shared by all individual members.

In for-profit organizations, the separation between management and labor seems clear. Management interests and decisions are driven by profit considerations. Unions and management look to profit margins as points of reference in negotiating contracts.

In public service organizations, the public as major stakeholders shape both the supply and demand of resources rather than profit margins. This means both the union and management look over their shoulders at the community’s demands and resources in addition to the balance books.

The Janus decision has broader implications than the payment of “fair share” dues.

If non-union members may not be forced to pay dues, should they be subjected to the contractual terms agreed to between the unions and administration? Should the union represent non-members in arbitration or other labor-related issues? What role should non-union members play in the different university committees and services?

Because the universities depend on the popularity, reputation and quality of some programs or departments more than others, could professors who are non-union members but who have influence on those programs or departments be able to demand preferential treatment in terms of work assignment and compensation?

My suggestion is not that the Janus decision should open a Pandora’s box. My suggestion is that public unions might work harder to appeal to employees.

The Janus decision should bring the new leadership of St. Cloud State University together with all employees, both union and non-union, to plan how to navigate the shared academic stewardship to the people of Central Minnesota.

One area in which unions turn off potential members is the singular union attitudes toward partisan politics. Unions can use their endorsement practices in favor of the quality of work of public representatives rather than political affiliation.

I know that there are many very important social and political employment issues in which unions have been drivers for change. I do not think that unions need to stop playing that role, but they could work harder to persuade their members, with some consideration given to the local constituency and stake holders.

This is the opinion of Dick Andzenge, a professor of criminal justice and victimology. Andzenge is an internationally recognized expert victimologist, who is a program director and lecturer for several academic courses in many countries. His column is published the second Wednesday of the month.