Unionization in the Academy: Visions and Realities. (2003). Judith Wagner DeCew. Rowman & Littlefield. 226 pp., $26.95 (paperback). ISBN 0-8476-9671-5.

Review by: Sandra Wulff

Group in Asian Studies

University of California , Berkeley

As anyone who has scheduled a faculty meeting knows, organizing a group of professors is akin to corralling cats. The faculty is comprised of independent and autonomous members. What then would provoke professors to join a labor union?

According to the author, the answer depends on how much adversity exists between the faculty and institutional administration. When faculty perceive themselves as unappreciated, replaceable, and expendable, they are more apt to seek protection by a union. In cases where they participate sufficiently in institutional management, faculty members perceive no threat from the administration. They are, in effect, the administration.

DeCew's research yields some interesting, if not surprising, findings. Public institutions have more faculty unions than do private schools, often because public colleges are subject to the whims of state legislatures. Unionization is more attractive to faculty in social science and humanities departments where pay is comparatively low and nonacademic job opportunities are few. High status, high salaried professors typically have not supported unions.

The current economy has sparked renewed interest in academic unionization even at private colleges and universities. As more institutions are run as businesses, faculty members feel and act more like employees. Thus, they may be more likely to relinquish control to unions that they believe represent their interests better than an administration does. Union supporters are concerned about economic and academic issues ranging from salaries and job security to academic freedom and faculty governance. Part-timers, adjunct faculty members, and graduate student teaching assistants arguably have the least influence on university governance and the most to gain in negotiations on remuneration and working conditions. Thus, they often strongly support unionization. In fact, according to the author, graduate student unions are currently active and are the topic of an entire chapter of DeCew's book.

The text itself is augmented by a section of selected readings. For example, the researchers of one study determined that unionization erodes faculty autonomy because the administration must adhere to strict contract laws dictated by the unions. Even though the text presents both sides of the unionization issue, the additional material can be redundant. Still the articles lend perspective and depth to particular faculty concerns such as tenure, contracts, and departmental collegiality.

DeCew focuses primarily on faculty issues and does not address staff unionization. However, the book should still interest advisors. Faculty members, for the most part, still drive the academy. Students depend on them. DeCew predicts that academic unionization will increase steadily in the future. Her research indicates that unionization affects campuses even in cases where the faculty decides against it. These issues influence the entire campus culture: administration, faculty, student body, and staff.