library article

8/8/2019 Library Article

1/22

WHO BENEFITS? UNIONIZATION AND ACADEMIC LIBRARIESAND LIBRARIANS

Rachel Applegate 'Advocates of unions frequently argue that unionization results in benefits for li-braries in general and for librarians. Previous data to support this position havebeen scattered, incomplete, and inconclusive. This study analyzes data on 1,904 ac-ademic libraries, 334 unionized, to explore whether there is a relationship betweena librarian-union presence and several quantitative values: student-librarian ratios,percentage of institutional budget devoted to libraries, average spending on salariesper librarian, percen tage of library budget devoted to librarians, percentage of librarystafiF who are librarians, and percentage of library budget devoted to staF salaries.Across institution degree levels (associates, baccalaureate, masters, doctoral, and As-sociation of Research Libraries members), results show that compared to librariansat either private or nonunionized public colleges and universities, librarians at un-ionized public institutions are somewhat better off. Librarians at public institutionsare generally better paid but have worse working conditionshigher student-to-li-brarian ratios and fewer resources for collections. All institutions except associates-level institutions receive roughly the same percentage of institutional budgets.

IntroductionWby do unions exist? Without plunging into a history of labor organizing,one can briefly summarize contemporary union goals in two categories:monetary and nonmonetary factors (salaries and benefits), on the onehand, and working conditions and other cispects of managerial control,on the other. The American Association of University Professors (AAUP)statement on collective bargaining itemizes five issues: academic freedom,faculty governance, handling of grievances, "economic well-being," andgeneral institutional advancement [1].1. Assistant professor, Indiana University School of Library and Information Science, Indi-

anapolis, 755 W. Michigan Street UL3100, Indianapolis, IN 46202; E-mail rapp lega@iupu i


2/22

444 THE LIBRARY QUARTERLYSome public and academic libraries in the United States have organizedworkforces, with unions that include support staff, professional staff, or

both. The reasons the bargaining units exist at individual institutions maybe a matter of state or local history or culture, past or current crises, orideological fervor. Whatever the initial cause, it is reasonable to assumethat in each case, current union participants believe that having a unionmakes some sort of difference.Do unions provide a benefit for academic libraries or librarians? Previousliterature on unions and academic libraries has consisted more of anec-dotes than systematic data. What data have been reported have been lim-ited and contradictory. This present research compared public unionized,public nonun ionized, and private colleges and universities, and succeededin identifying a few specific areas in which reliable, quantitative data areavailable to show whether there are any systematic benefits of unionizationof librarians at academic institutions. The results allow practitioners todraw a few conclusions about their own lives in union or nonunion uni-versities, presen t som e issues for managers to consider, and show research-ers what can be said and what remains to be determined by other studies.

Background and Literature ReviewThe most generic statemen t about u nions could be that unions are createdand continue in existence when they are con sidered, by a sufficient numberof relevant persons, to be a benefit themselves (to be a "good thing") orto confer benefits (to result in "good things"). The following review doesnot include arguments about or research on unions in general. Instead,it examines the relatively limited literature on unions specifically in li-braries, in academia, and in academic libraries, focusing on what is con-sidered to "cause" unionization (unionization as a dependent variable)and what unionization itself might "cause" (unionization as an indepen-dent variable). This literature, while providing relatively little concretedata, shows that what librarians think is an important aspect of the issues.Unions and Managerial ConditionsWhen labor studies turn from blue-collar workers to white-collar or pro-fessional workers, and to librarians specifically, public librarians for manystructural reasons are more often the target of research. Public librarians


3/22

UNIONIZATION AND ACADEMIC LIBRARIES 445sociated with larger organization size (which seemed to involve greaterbureaucratization) and a favorable legislative climate [2]. Similarly, a studyspecifically examining developments in Ohio after legislation enabling or-ganizing was enacted, by means of interviews with librarians and o the r data,and concluded that m anagerial issues such as "dignity and respect" and "fairtreatment" were more im portant than wages for the library support staff [3] .An increasing share of union mem bership among teachers (to whom publiclibrarians compared themselves) and faculty (to whom academic librarianscom pared themselves) seemed to encourage the unionization of professionallibrarians.

A questionnaire study on unionization and organizational loyalty con-ducted at research libraries received many comments from respondentsshowing dissatisfaction with library management at unionized institutions[4]. This poor-management-as


4/22

446 TH E LIBRARY QUARTERLYuation argued strongly that using collective bargaining to achieve greaterequality with faculty (to achieve faculty status) would be difficult at best.At Wayne State the union framework did not prove successful in solvingfundamental disagreements within the librarians themselves with respectto the definition of "faculty" in terms of research responsibilities and inhow librarian work was equated with classroom teaching.The idea that librarians' status is a problem when it comes to academicunions was also seen in a study at the University of Pittsburgh, which showedthat support for unionization was highest in those academic areas theresearchers termed the "have-nots": it was supported by nursing and dentalfaculty but not but other health sciences faculty; supported by humanitiesfaculty more than by sciences faculty; supported by librarians but notSchool of Library and Information Science faculty [13]. Page Ackerman'sobservation in 1980 that the role of librarians in campus unions was verydependent upon their existing role vis vis classroom faculty has beenfrequently echoed in subsequent commentary and research [14].

However contentious and however unsettled the question of librarianstatus or governance role, it is not explored in the present research, dueto major challenges in data definition and measurement. "Faculty status"has been demonstrated to have very differing meanings across differentcampuses [15].Unions and Monetary ConditionsIf these managerial (such as poor or bureaucratic management leading tounionization) or governance (such as unionization as an attem pt to ensureequality of librarians and faculty) issues have been difficult to analyze, whatabout the more concrete characteristics usually associated with unioniza-tion? In this literature, un ionization is explored as a potential cause, ratherthan an effect: What benefits does it confer?In public libraries, two studies from 1985 found a small relation withwages. Mary Rosenthal's study controlled for other variables, including thesize of the library and the local extent of unionization in the area. In onestudy, after accounting for these other factors, unionization appeared tobe associated with higher salaries for (all) librarians (though not depart-ment heads or clerical workers) [16], and in the other study, higher salariesfor b eginning librarians and beginn ing clerical workers also were associatedwith unionization [17].Research by Dale Belman, Jo hn Heywood, and Jo hn Lun d found that


5/22


6/22

448 TH E LIBRARY QUARTERLYTABLE 1

INSTITUTIONS INCLUDEDControlPublicNonprofitFor-profit

Total

ARL6629095

Doctoral Non-ARL93530146

Masters2442694517

Baccalaureate663833452

Associates6332833694

Total1,102762401,904

Staffing and financial characteristics? Are users, the library, and librariansthemselves better off in a unionized situation?Research Questions RQl: Do users benefit? Is there a lower ratio of students to librarians?This assumes that better service can be rendered when there are morelibrarians for a given student population. RQ2: Does the library benefit? Does the library receive a larger per-centage of the institution's operating budget? RQ3: Do librarians or library staff benefit?

- Are average librarian salaries higher?- Is a greater percentage of the library staff librarians?- Is a greater percentage of library salary expenditure devoted tolibrarians?- Do staff receive a higher percentage of the library's operatingexpenditures?None of these questions addresses library quality directly. The student-librarian ratio can be considered a weak proxy, and the others are relevantto a library's inpu ts or capacities. Neither did this study attempt to measuremanagerial practices in unionized compared to nonunionized institutions.This study focused on the quantifiable context within which library man-agers and staff work.PopulationThe population studied here includes 1,904 accredited U.S. colleges anduniversities with over 500 students, as shown in table I. Most are public(58 percen t) or private, not-for-profit (40 perce nt ), with 2 percent privatefor-profit. The largest group is at the associates (community and technicalcollege) level (36 percent), with 24 percent baccalaureate, 27 percent


7/22

UN IONIZAT ION AND ACADEMIC LIBRARIES 449ization has had significant limitations in the identified population. Some-times it was confined to public institutions [15, 16] or the ARL universe[19]. Individual librarian respondents sometimes were asked for data theycould not supply [8].This data pool was developed from three separate existing sets: the Na-tional Center for Education Statistics (NCES) Academic Libraries Survey(ALS) [24], the NCES Integrated Postsecondary Education Data Service(IPEDS) survey series [25], and the Directory of Faculty Contracts and Bar-gaining Agents in Institutions of Higher Education [26] .Institutions that provided both 2004 ALS and 2004 IPEDS data wereincluded: this constitutes approximately 92 percent of IPEDS-submittinginstitutions classified as baccalaureate, masters, or doctoral institutions . Forassociates institutions, the response rate was 75 percent. IPEDS partici-pation is mandatory for institutions participating in federal financial aidprograms (Tide IV eligible). The da ta sets are approximately simultaneous:ALS 2004 data were released in 2006; 2004 IPEDS data were released in2005.Two other qualifications were applied in order to eliminate the mosthighly variable infonnation. In size, only institutions that had more than500 undergraduates and more than one librarian were included. This elim-inated 31 percent of associates institutions, but only 2 percent of doctoral,4 percent of masters, and 5 percent of baccalaureate-level institutions.Institutions that were classified as "specialized" (that is, most of theirdegrees were awarded in a single area, such as law, medicine, education, orengineering) were excluded. The disciplinary and pedagogical aspects ofeach type of specialization have such an impact on library needs and usesthat variation of staffing and library data within the "specialized" categoryis so great that any comparisons are either impossible or meaningless.

The final defined universe thus contained 1,904 institutions representingan incomplete census of U.S. postsecondary institutions at a given pointin timenot a sample (table 1). Those excluded were specialized (degreesonly in a particular field), very small (fewer than 500 students), had oneor no librarian, or were unaccredited. A few institutionsmost at theassociates levelqualified on other grounds but had not participated inthe Academic Library Survey. Because of these inclusions and exclusions,the data should be interpreted as describing primarily traditional, main-stream academia. Institutions with special characteristics would not findthemselves represented here; associates-level data should be interpretedwith caution.


8/22

450 T H E LIBRARY QUA RTERLYindependent variables) were institution type (degree level, from associatesto research) and unionization-governance (public unionized, public non-unionized, and private). Six descriptive dep endent variables m easured theconditions of library staff, library budgets, and library patrons: Student-librarian ratio Library budget as percen tage of institutional budget Librarian average salary Librarians as percentage of library staff Librarian salaries as percentage of staff salaries Staff salaries as percentage of library budgetData definition independent variables.Institution type (degree level) wasderived from Carnegie and Association of Research Libraries data. Institution type: Carnegie institutional classifications were first col-lapsed into four main levels: associates, baccalaureate, masters, anddoctoral. The doctoral group was then divided into "doctoral non-ARL" and ARL institutions, using the membership list for the Asso-ciation of Research Libraries. ARL membership depends on criteriaof extensive resources and large sizethese are some of the most

wealthy American doctoral institutions [27].The unionization-governance variable wcis derived and defined in a two-step process. This was done for two reasons. First, it is known that control(private-public status) is associated with differing patterns of academiclibrary staffing [28]. Exam ining union ization alone would risk swampingunion-associated differences in control-associated differences. Second, atwo-by-two design was inappropriate because of the very small number ofprivate unionized institutions. Control: "Control" is the term used in IPEDS to indicate governanceor ownership of an institution: public, private not-for-profit, and pri-vate for-profit.In this study, the for-profit and not-for-profit categories were first collapsedinto one "private" category. It should be no ted that at this time, there area very small number of for-profit institutions at the masters or doctorallevels; most private baccalaureate institutions are not-for-profit, and mostprivate associates institutions are for-profit. Unionization status: An institution was coun ted as "unionized" if li-brarians were noted in the Directory of Faculty Contracts as being reresented by a bargaining unit.


9/22

UN IONIZAT ION AND ACADEMIC LIBRARIES 451TABLE 2

FINAL ANALYTICAL GROUPINGSGOVERNANCE

T Y P EARLDoctoral non-ARLMastersBaccalaureateAssociates

Total

Private2953

273386

6180 2

Publ ic Nonunionized4769

16547

435763

Public Llnionized19247919

19 8339

TOTAL

95146517452694

1,904NOTE. F or s ome variables, not all 1,904 institutions had data; A^for each group is noted.

union (a specific bargaining unit is in existence). It generally excludesinstitutions where there are only clerical-level unions (e.g., of library para-professionals or clerks) and may not count librarians separately if they arein one group with faculty at an institution. Here, only those institutionsthat noted librarians as unionized were counted as such. Out of the poolof 1,904 institutions, only four reported unions for librarians but not forfull-time faculty. Most have no unions (76 pe rcen t), 19 pe rcent have un ionsfor both librarians and faculty (where both are unionized, though theymay have separate bargaining u nits), and 5 percen t have unions for facultybut not for librarians (22 percent of institutions with unions).The Directory relies on institutional cooperation, and there is some evi-dence that the Directory's information may not be reliable. In a 1991 studyEinley reported that seven of seventeen community colleges listed in thedirectory had incorrect un ionization information [20]. A brief test of the2004 data showed only a 1-3 percent error rate for four-year institutionsand approximately 6 percent for associates institutions. Control X unionization status = governance Governance = public unionized , public nonunion ized, privateThe variables of control and unionization were then combined to dividethe universe into three "governance" types: private (both unionized [22]and nonunionized [780]), public nonunionized (763), and public union-ized (339) see table 2.Unionization is not evenly spread throughout the academic universe. Itis highly concentrated in public institutions. This is primarily due to na-tional labor law that considers most faculty to be "managers" and alsoexempts religiously based organizations. Organization of faculty at public


10/22

452 THE LIBRARY QUARTERLYare public. Out of the initial qualifying universe of 1,904 institutions, thereare only twenty-two private, librarian-unionized institutions: three percent,a group too small to bear much analysis.Data definitionsdependent variables.Five library variables were taken frALS data; definitions are from ALS [24]. Number of librarians: "The total FTE of staff whose duties requireprofessional education (the master's degree or its equivalent) in thetheoretical and scientific aspects of librarianship." Number of total [library] staff: "The sum of the total FTE of librarians,other professional staff, student assistants, and all other paid staff." Total librarian salaries: "Expenditures for full-time and part-time sal-aries and wages before deductions for librarians and other professionalstaff [excludes fringe benefits]." Total [library] staff salaries: Librarian salaries added to "other staffsalaries" defined as "Expenditures for full-time and part-time salariesand wages before deductions for all paid staff, except librarians, otherprofessional staff, and student assistants, including technical and cler-ical staff, but not maintenance and custodial staff."

Total operating budget: "The total of all funds expended from thelibrary budget in thefiscalyear regardless of when the funds may havebeen received from Federal, State, or other sources. All expendituresare reported in whole dollars. Includes: salaries and wages; books,serial backfiles, and other materials; current serial subscriptions; . . .[other services, collections, and automation] . . . and all other op-erating expenditures."Two institutional variables were collected from IPEDS data [25]: Number of students: "Total FTE 12-month enrollment"; this is pro-vided by IPEDS and transferred into the ALS database from which itwas extracted for this study. "The full-time-equivalent (FTE) enroll-ment used is the sum of the institutions' FTE undergraduate enroll-ment and FTE graduate enrollment (as calculated from or reportedon the 12-month Enrollment component) plus the estimated FTE offirst-professional students. Undergraduate and graduate FTE are es-timated using 12-month instructional activity (credit and/or contacthours) " [see IPEDS for further details]. Institutional operating budget (total expenses): Because different ac-counting standards apply to different types of institutions, three IPEDS


11/22

UN IONIZAT ION AND ACADEMIC LIBRARIES 453FO3O4_F1A): "Total operating expensestotal expenses is the sum of all oper-ating expenses that result from providing goods and services. Operating trans-actions are incurred in the course of the operating activities of the institution."Private Not-For-Profit Institutions: Total expensestotal amount (F0304_F2) :"Variable Sources: Form F2" [no further definition provided].Private For-Profit [Institutions] : Total expenses (F0304_F3) ; "Variable Descrip-tion: Total expenses are the outflow or other using up of assets or incurrenceof liabilities (or a combination of both) from delivering or producing goods,rendering services, or carrying out other activities that constitute the institution's[sic] ongoing major or central operations or in gene rating revenues. Alternatively,expenses may be thought of as the costs of goods and services used to producethe educational services provided by the institution. Expenses result in a reduc-tion of net assets."

Descriptive and Analytical StatisticsThe following results present averages for groups and subgroups, as wellas R^ values for the strength of associations between variables. The averagegives the summarized central point of each grouping's data and shows theabsolute differences between def ined groups. The R^ is a measure of thestrength of the relationship between sets of variables: the percent of var-iation in one variable associated with values of another variable. Here, thatis the var iat ion in each of the dependent var iables that is predicted byinsti tution type and governance category.

Statistical significance terminology is used in inferential testing to ex-press the likelihood that differences or relationships that are seen in asamp le may be inferred for the p opu lation as a wh ole. I t takes into acco un tsampling error. I t does not take into account systematic bias in samplingor errors in the data itself.

In the present census-type situation, two normally inferential sample-based tests were employed to assist in interpreting the data. Analysis ofVariance (ANOVA) is a reflection of how the variability within a groupdiffers from the variability between groups. One can be more confidenttha t ther e is a "real" difference betw een g rou ps when tha t difference islarger than the differences among members within each group. The chi-squ ared test of association similarly has m ea ni ng as it co m pa res an observ eddistribution of categorical data (how many items fall into which categories)from the dis tr ibution that might be expected from random (chance) var-


12/22

454 THE LIBRARY QUARTERLYTABLE 3

RATIO O F STUDENTS T O LIBRARIANS

TYPE

ARLDoctoral non-ARLMastersBaccalaureateAssociatesAverage across all types

Private189400458337415383

GOVERNANCE

PublicNonun ion iz e d

43055 260162 9968797

PublicUnionized

406632615492

1,043848

A L LGOVERNANCE

GROUPS

351510527373941632

NOTE. -Af= 1,904.

ResultsDo Users Benefit'?User benefit was operationalized as a favorable student-to-librarian ratio.That is, it is assumed that the fewer users per librarian, the better. Themost numerous users of academic libraries are students.

Results for student-librarian ratio as a dependent variable were statisti-cally significantly different (ANOVA, />< .05) by type, governance , an d thecombination of the categories (type x governance interaction). Thestrength of the combination as a predictor was F^ = .343.Compared to private institutions, all public institutions had higher (lessbeneficial) student-to-librarian ratios, from 31 percent more students perlibrarian (public, nonunionized masters) to 152 percent more (public,unionized associates)see table 3. This higher ratio is a less beneficialsituation, as it means that more students are being served by fewer librar-ians. For most institution types, unionized public institutions had higherratios than nonunionized public: 2 percent for masters, 8 percent forassociates, and 14 percent for doctoral institutions. Interestingly, for bac-calaureate and ARL institutions, nonunionized public universities hadlower student-librarian ratios: 22 percent and 6 percent, respectively (table4).From this ratio data, it seems that the public versus private divide is mostimportant, with private institutions consistendy having fewer students perlibrarian (a lower, more beneficial ratio). Unionization has a statisticallysignificant relation with type but not a consistent or consistendy beneficial


13/22

UNIONIZATION AND ACADEMIC LIBRARIES 455TABLE 4

S T U D E N T R A T I O S C O M P A R E D B E T W EE N G O V E R N A N C E G R O U P S

T Y P EARLDoctoral non-ARLMastersBaccalaureateAssociates

Public:N o n u n i o n vs.

- 614

2- 2 2

8

D I F F E R E N C E

Union

IN P E R C E N T A G EPrivate vs.

Public Union115

583446

152

P O I N T SPrivate vs.

Publ ic Nonunion12 8

383187

13 3

Does the Library Benefit?Some have argued that unionized personnel are better able or more mo-tivated to be advocates for their organizationsprimarily with respect topublic libraries, where the library is a relatively independent entity. Onthe academic campus, one test of this would be if a unionized library'sbudget were a larger proportion of the institution's budget. This was op-erationalized here as the total library operating expenditures divided bythe total operating expenditures for the institution. Expenditures wereused instead of revenues because of the very different and very variablemonetary streams involved in public and private institutions, affected bydifferential reliance on tuition, endowment income, grants, and publicfunding.There was a statistically significant relationship (ANOVA, p


14/22

456 THE LIBRARY QUARTERLYTABLE 5

LIB R A R Y EX P EN D ITU R E S AS P E R C E N T A G E OF I N S T I T U T I O N A L O P E R A T I N GE X P E N D I T U R E S

TY P EARLDoctoral non-ARLMastersBaccalaureateAssociatesAverage across all types

Private2.42.32.32.41.72.3

G O V ER N A N C EPublic

Nonun ion iz e d2.22.42.82.21.82.1

PublicUnionized

2.22.32.32.31.61.9

NOTE.-A'= 1,860.

As noted, there are different studies that show, or do not show, a relationbetween salary levels for unionized compared to nonunionized librarians.Therefore, one benefit from unionization in academic libraries might behigher librarian salaries.However, it has also been suggested that financial advantages to the staffmay produce reciprocal disadvantages elsewhere: if there is more moneyfor union members, perhaps there would be less money for other purposes.Therefore, it is appropriate to examine this set of dependent variables:average librarian salary (more money for librarians), librarians as a pro-portion of total staff (more highly paid staff perhaps meaning fewer otherstaff), and total staff salaries as a proportion of the library's total budget(more money for staff, perhaps less money for collections).Librarian SalaryAverage librarian salary was calculated from the total salary amount re-ported in ALS for "librarians and other professionals" divided by the num-ber of "librarians and other professionals." (In most libraries, "other pro-fessionals" make up a very small proportion of the staff.) If unionizationhas succeeded in influencing wages, it might be detectable here . One majorconfounding element, however, is that unionization is not geographicallyrandom. Areas with higher unionization rates (e.g., the Northeast) mayhave different costs of living, and also unionized institutions may havestaffs that differ in characteristics such as longevity or qualifications, skew-ing the results. This particular analysis needs to be viewed as very tentative.


15/22

UN IONIZAT ION AND ACADEMIC LIBRARIES 457TABLE 6

AVERAGE SPENDING O N SALARIES P E R LIBRARIAN

T Y P EARLDoctoral non-ARLMastersBaccalaureateAssociatesAverage across all types

Private74,50450,70452,28243,16335,08347,764

GOVERNANCE

PublicNonun ion iz e d

79,58279,96256,46642,40555,11758,804

PublicUnionized

56,08154,89665,01751,71354,24856,871

i = 1,749.

to interpret. The data show that some of the highest paid librarians areat public nonunionized doctoral institutions, bo th ARL and non-ARL, fol-lowed by librarians at private ARL institutions, as might be expected (table6).The high average salary for unionized masters-level librarians is sur-prising. A study has shown that public masters-level librarians have seenthe largest increase in the students-per-librarian ratio [29] in recent years,and possibly this greater workload is reflected in higher salaries. Again,with aggregated salaries it is impossible to detect important factors. Forexample, if masters institutions have grown in student numbers but havenot increased tbeir staff size, a stable cohort of librarians would each yearbecome more experienced and more highly compensated without new,cheaper librarians to pull down the overall average. Private associates in-stitutions pay the least well. In contrast to the baccalaureate level, wheremost private institutions are not-for-profit, the great majority of privateassociates colleges are for-profit.Librarians as Proportion of Overall StaffSimilar to the results for average salary, for this variable, institution typeis statistically significantly associated with proportion of staff who are li-brarians (ANOVA, p


16/22


PERCENTAGE OF S T A F F WHO ARE LIBRARIANS


Private272939415640

GOVERNANCEPublic

Nonun ion iz e d262529384538

PublicUnionized

232428333834

N O T E . - A i = 1,904.

Another study might determine whether the availability of graduate stu-dents for the workforces at doctoral institutions might allow more flexiblestaffing, compared tobaccalaureate, masters, and associates colleges, wherethe choices are usually professionals or paraprofessionals and undergrad-uates.Staff Salaries as a Proportion of Library BudgetIn this variable a striking and significant effect is seen for both institutiontype and governance type, as well as their interaction. The relationship isstrong, too, with the explanatory power of the two variables and theirinteraction being 51 percent (f^). In every institution type, unionizedpublic institutions devote a larger proportion of their library's budgets tosalaries than do nonunionized public institutionsfrom 2 to 10 percentagepoints more (table 8). The contrast between private and nonunionizedpublic institutions is neither as large no r as consistent. In three categoriesARL, doctoral, and mastersthe public nonunionized average is slighdybelow that of private institutions; for baccalaureate institutions, thepublicnonunionized is somewhat higher than private. At the associates level, thetrend between public nonunionized versus unionized is the same (higherfor unionized) ; the data for private associates institutions are omitted be-cause there is data for only two such institutions.

Discussion


17/22

UNIONIZATION AND ACADEMIC LIBRARIES 459TABLE 8

P ER C EN TA G E O F LIB R A R Y B U D G ET D EV O TED TO S A LA R IES


Private4447535151

G O V ER N A N C EPublic

Nonun ion iz e d444553577157

PublicUnionized

494761677364

P O IN T D IEF ER EN C E,U N IO N IZED O V E RN O N U N I O N I Z E D

528

1027

NoTE.-W= 1.150.

nonunionized public institutions in the other measured areas (table 9).Clearly, institutional typecommunity college, baccalaureate, masters,doctoral, and ARLis associated with budget size and staffing. Across allof these types, however, it appears that unionization is a consistent positiveor neutral quality. The strong association with staff salary budgets is aconfirmation of the assumption that unionization is directed at or resultsin benefits for union membersand the corollary that other areas of thebudget may be negatively affected.This study does not attempt to explore why these differing conditionsexist. Interviews with pro- and an tiunion advocates [5], as well as com mentsreported in conjunction with previous surveys and studies, offer a numberof reasons for unionization efforts, union loyalty, or distrust of unions.Union membership sometimes is simply a matter of local or state politicaland social culture, or may be prompted by local management or person-alities, rather than any generic theory about union benefits to the libraryor librarians.Similarly, this study does not correlate union status with any qualitativemeasure of library services or resources. It is inputs-oriented (budget, per-sonnel) rather than incorporating outputs or outcomes.There are three implications that can be drawn from this study's results:for librarians personally, for library managers, and for researchers. First,if librarians seek some sense of what is the best employment situationaprivate, a public unionized, or a public nonunionized institutionthereis a partial answer. If they work at a public institution, they will probablybe part of smaller staffs (in relation to other library workers and in relationto student users) but be paid more. Librarians in unionized institutions


18/22


SUMMARY OF GOVERNANCE AND TYPE IN RELATION TO BENEFITS

Dependent VariableStaff salaries as proportion of

library budgetStudent-librarian ratioLibrarians as proportion ofstaifLibrarian average salaryLibrary budget as percentageof institutional budget

Governance Group inthe Best Situation(across InstitutionTypes)UnionPrivatePrivatePublic (unionized and

nonunionized)No advantage

Strength ofRelationship:Governance and Typeto Dependent VariableStrong F? (.51)Strong i? (.34)Small R^ (.03)Small R" (.02)No statistically signifi-cant effect

unionization nor type of institution (above the associates level) is associatedwith a difference in the percentage of the institution's budget that thelibrary receives. Doctoral, baccalaureate, public- or private-unionized in-stitutionsall institutional groups average about 2.2 percent of their in-stitution's overall spending.If the library as a whole receives the same funding, regardless of levelor unionization, then where are the decisions about spending that budgetbeing made? If results show that a unionized library typically directs moreresources to individual librarian salaries than to other library needs, is thisa "library management" decision? Is this mandated by union bargaining(e.g., for salary scales)? Is it expected by the institution's overall admin-istration? Or is it a comparatively "free" choice of library directors?This is an issue of particular concern to academic libraries, more so thanother areas on campus. In most academic units (e.g., an English depart-ment or an advising center), personnel costs make up the lion's share ofthe budget. Professors are well aware of the common trade-offs betweenfull-time faculty lines and adjunct/contingent instructors. Libraries facethe additional budget responsibility of collections. Increasing personnelcosts un de r a union ization situation inevitably detracts from funds availablefor collections. If decisions about salaries are dictated elsewhere than inthe library, the library manager is faced with "making do" with fewer re-sources and flexibility than in the average private or nonunionized publicinstitution. On the other hand , the higher salaries of public and unionized


19/22

UNIONIZAT ION AND ACADEMIC LIBRARIES 461more and less expensive (e.g., science, technology, and medical journalinflation, on the one hand, and the open-source movement as well asGoogle-as-reference department, on the other). Second, most observersexpect patterns of library staffing to alter with changes in technology andin library users. A union structureparticularly one subject to negotiationonly every several yearsposes significant challenges to dealing with thesechanges.For researchers, this study provides some, but very limited, answers inthe unionization area. Based on a larger data set than previously available,it specifically tests particular quantitative claims that have been made forunionization. There are demonstrated relations with salaries and staffing.This established, other researchers can go on to different issues and futureconcerns.Two different issues would be better addressed with other quantitativedata, and with Ccise studies and qualitative research: library quality andmanagerial flexibility. In this study, a student-librarian ratio can be inter-preted as a limited proxy for service quality. Combining unionization datawith other measures such as LibQUAL-l- [30] for services or collectionstrength data for collections [31, 32] could begin to explore how thevarious qualities associated with unionization do or do not intersect withthe desired outcomes of addressing the information needs of present andfuture patrons.Case studies and selective interviews could address in a more systematicand less anecdotal way how library managers' decision making is influencedby union or nonunion situations. Clearly, union contracts constrain man-agerial decision making. How this works out in the details of reality needsexploration. At this point it can be said that, for mainstream Americanacademic libraries, being private is "best" on most quantitative meeisuresfor the library, and unionization is best for librarians.

REFERENCES1. American Association of University Professors. Statement on CollectiveBargaining. 1993.http://vmw.aaup.org/AAtJP/pubsres/policydocs/contents/statementcolbargaining.htm.2. Guyton, Theodore Lewis. Unionization: The Viewpoint of Librarians. Chicago: AmericanLibrary Association, 1975.3. Weber, Mark. "Support Staff tJnion s in Academic and Public Libraries: Some Suggestionsfor Managers with Reference to the Ohio Experience, 1984 to 1990." joumal of Library


20/22

462 THE LIBRARY QUARTERLYSparanese, Anne C; and Dickter, Laurence S. "The Benefits and Deficiencies of Unionsin Public Libraries." Special section; essays. Public Libraries 41, no. 3 (2002): 135-42.

6. Hovecamp, Tina Maragou. "Unionization and Job Satisfaction among Professional LibraryEmployees in Academic Research Institutions." College & Research Libraries 56 (1995341-50.

7. Mauer, Michael. "Academic Unionism." Academe, July-August 2006.8. Garcha, Rajinder, and Phillips, John C. "US Academic Librarians: Their Involvement in

Union Activities." Library Rniiew 50, no. 3 (2001): 22-27.9. Lee, Janet. "Contract Equity for Librarians at Regis University." Library Personnel News,

March-April 1993, 3-5.10. Milton, Suzanne. "Librarians: Key Players in Faculty Unions." Alki, December 2005, 5-7.11 . Wood, Deanna. "Librarians and Unions: Defining and Protecting Professional Values."

Education Libraries 2^, no. 1 (1999): 12-16.12. Spang, Lothar. "Collective Bargaining and Faculty Status: A Twenty-Year Case Study of

Wayne State University Librarians." College &" Research Libraries 54 (1993): 241-53.13. Ginsburg, Mark B., and Wion, Philip K "Organizing University Faculty for Collective

Action in the U.S.: Corporatization, a Divided Professoriate, and the Possibility of Com-munity." Contemporary Education 69, no. 4 (1998): 191-95.

14. Ackerman, Page. "Governance and Academic Libraries." Library Research 2 (1980): 3-28.15. Center for Survey Research. / 999 Academic Library Trends and Statistics. Chicago: Associatio

of College and Research Libraries, 2000.16. Rosen thal, Mary F. "The Impact of Unions on Salaries in Public Libraries." Library Quarterly

55, no. 1 (1985): 52-70.17. Rosenthal, Mary F. "Union/Nonunion Wage Differentials in Public Library [sic]." Public

Library Quarterly 6, no. 4 (1985): 27 -41 .18. Belman, Dale; Heywood, John; and Lund, John. "Public Sector Earnings and the Extent

of Unionization." Industrial and Labor Relations Review 50, no. 4 (1997): 610-28.19. Kusack, James M. Unions for Academic Library Support Staff. Vol. 10, New Directions in Infor-

mationManagement. New York: Greenwood, 1986.20. Finley, Charles. "The Relationship between Unionization and Job Satisfaction among Two-

Year College Faculty." Community College Review 19, no. 2 (1991): 53-60.21 . Wiley, Carolyn. "The Effect of Unionization on Community College Faculty Remunera-

tion: An Overview." Community College Review 21, no. 1 (1993): 48-57.22. Elmuti, Dean, and Kathawala, Yunus. "Full Time University Faculty Members' Perceptions

of Unionization Impact on Overall Compensation Dimensions."/ouraa/ of Research andDevelopment in Education 24, no. 2 (1991): 9-15.

23. American Library Association-Allied Professionals Association (ALA-APA) and the De-partment for Professional Employees, AFI^CIO. "The Union Difference for Library Work-ers." http://www.ala-apa.org/salaries/UnionDifference.ppt.

24. Compare Academic Libraries, National Center for Education Statistics, http://www.nces.ed.gov/surveys/Iibraries/compare/index.asp?LibraryType = Academic.

25. Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System, Peer Analysis System, http://www.nces.ed.gov/ipedspas/.

26. Moriarty, Joan, and Savarese, Michelle. Directory ofEaculty Contracts and Bargaining Agentin Institutions of Higher Education. Edited by Richard Boris. New York: National Center for


21/22

UN IONIZATION AND ACADEMIC LIBRARIES 46329. Applegate , Rachel . "Whose Decline? Which Academic Libraries Are 'Deserted ' in Terms

of Reference Transactions." Reference and User Services Quarterly 48, no . 2 (2008) : 176-89.30. Th om ps on , B ruce; Kyril lidou, M artha; and Cook, Colleen. "Library Users ' Service Desires:

A LibQ UA L+ Study." Library Quarterly 78, no. 1 (2008): 1-18.31. White, Howard D. "Better than Brief Tests: Coverage PowerTests of Collection Strength."Colkge & Research Libraries 69, no. 2 (2008): 155-74.

32. Beals, Je nn ife r B ene det to, an d G ilmour, R on. "Assessing Collec tions Usin g Brief Testsand Worldcat Collection Analysis." Collection Building 26, no. 4 (2007): 104-7.


22/22

library article

Documents