Community Representation in Teacher Collective Bargaining: Problems and Prospects

1976 ◽  
Vol 46 (2) ◽  
pp. 153-174 ◽  
Author(s):  
Charles Cheng

In the past decade, the authority of school administrators and school boards has been called into question by members of two emerging groups—teachers' unions and advocates of community control. While both movements have received much attention, the relationship between them has gone largely unrecognized. Charles W. Cheng argues that collective bargaining between unions and school systems is creating an infrastructure of labor-relations experts who are removing decisionmaking power from both school boards and rank-and-file teachers; as enlargement of the scope of bargaining pulls more and more educational-policy decisions into the collective-bargaining arena, parents and communities are pushed further than ever from the educational power structure. Yet ways exist to include parents and communities in educational decision making without sacrificing the gains which teachers' unions have won. Challenging teachers to reexamine the policies their leaders have pursued, the author describes and assesses several strategies for opening up the bargaining process.

1976 ◽  
Vol 70 (4) ◽  
pp. 1185-1201 ◽  
Author(s):  
James L. Perry ◽  
Charles H. Levine

Despite increased interest in public sector collective bargaining, a survey of recent attempts to build theory about the dynamics and outcomes of union-management negotiations in public organizations reveals that little progress has been made. One approach that appears fruitful is interorganizational analysis. In an interorganizational context, organizations interact with other autonomous organizations to make joint decisions that have implications for both parties and for the larger system. This study focuses on five interorganizational variables that are useful for understanding the collective bargaining process in the public sector: (1) goal divergence; (2) stability of the relationship; (3) organizational dependence; (4) conflictual behavior; (5) contractual change.From these theoretical concepts, five propositions are derived which serve as the basis for the research hypotheses. The hypotheses were tested on a sample of 60 cases drawn from a population of 535 collective bargaining negotiations in New York City from 1968 through 1972. The test of the research hypotheses resulted in these conclusions: (1) a substantial amount of the conflictual behavior in public sector collective bargaining is explained by goal divergence, stability of the relationship, and asymmetry of relative dependence favoring one of the organizations; and (2) contractual change is explained by goal divergence, conflictual behavior, and asymmetry of relative dependence favoring one of the organizations.


1993 ◽  
Vol 3 (2) ◽  
pp. 165-185
Author(s):  
Gloria Jean Thomas ◽  
David J. Sperry

Extra duty assignments for teachers rarely led to litigation prior to the 1980s. However, a study of recent extra duty cases indicated that the number and variety of cases are increasing. Cases were grouped into six categories: (1) contracts, (2) staffing patterns, (3) tenure, (4) demotion and stigma, (5) due process, and (6) collective bargaining agreements. Conclusions were that supplemental contracts are becoming common, extra duties should be assigned equitably, tenure does not accrue to extra duty positions, teachers’ associations are becoming involved in making extra duty assignments, and school boards must establish clear policies related to teachers’ extra duties.


2019 ◽  
pp. 0160449X1988337 ◽  
Author(s):  
Eunice S. Han ◽  
Thomas N. Maloney

This paper investigates the relationship between teachers unions and students’ academic performance. We examine nationally representative data and use a more comprehensive measure of teacher unionization by identifying both districts with collective bargaining contracts and districts with meet-and-confer agreements. We find that teachers unions raise student test scores via both channels. This positive relationship is stronger for black students than for white students and for lower grade than upper grade levels.


2021 ◽  
Vol 27 (1) ◽  
pp. 29-46
Author(s):  
Maarten Keune

In the context of rising inequality between capital and labour and among wage-earners in Europe, this state-of-the-art article reviews the literature concerning the relationship between collective bargaining and inequality. It focuses on two main questions: (i) what is the relationship between collective bargaining, union bargaining power and inequality between capital and labour? and (ii) what is the relationship between collective bargaining, union bargaining power and wage inequality among wage-earners? Both questions are discussed in general terms and for single- and multi-employer bargaining systems. It is argued that collective bargaining coverage and union density are negatively related to both types of inequality. These relationships are however qualified by four additional factors: who unions represent, the weight of union objectives other than wages, the statutory minimum wage, and extensions of collective agreements by governments.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document