Details

Autor(en) / Beteiligte

• Kenyon, Charles Bowen

Titel

Labor relations in higher education: A case study of the Harvard Union of Clerical and Technical Workers organizing campaign

Ort / Verlag

ProQuest Dissertations & Theses

Erscheinungsjahr

1992

Quelle

ProQuest Dissertations & Theses A&I

Beschreibungen/Notizen

• This case study of the Harvard Union of Clerical and Technical Workers (HUCTW) organizing drive details the union's campaign, the university's attempts to prevent union recognition, and the lessons for those in higher education who seek to improve the practice of labor relations. The study analyzes the strategies and tactics used by the union to promote, and by Harvard's management to oppose, the HUCTW organizing drive to determine those factors which account for the union's success at gaining the right to represent clerical and technical employees at Harvard University. The study used a qualitative research design featuring interviews and document analyses as the sources of data. Interviews were used to learn from participants why each side chose their respective strategies and tactics and how participants evaluated the success or failure of each side's campaign. Purposive sampling was used to identify respondents, and content analysis was used to analyze and interpret data. Several factors account for the union's success: a lack of goal consensus among Harvard's leadership; the limited credibility of Harvard's campaign leader; the inspirational quality of union leadership; the effectiveness of the union's organizing committee; and Harvard's ineffective use of supervisors. Harvard's decentralized campaign strategy led to an inconsistent effort, whereas one-to-one organizing enabled HUCTW to reach most employees. HUCTW raised quality-of-worklife issues, asserted a non-adversarial image, obtained favorable media coverage, and made sure supporters voted. Harvard allowed HUCTW access to employees, started its campaign too late, and was divided over the question of whether to recognize the union or pursue further NLRB appeals. This case suggests that, to achieve their goals, managers should increase employee participation in decision-making, whereas unions should define unionization as the means to do so. Unions should use "inoculation" tactics, assert a non-adversarial image, and build a grass-roots organization. Managers should claim unionization will bring conflict and result in employee interests being dominated by external agents. Unions should use one-to-one organizing, involve the media, and track supporters to target recruitment and "get out the vote" efforts. Managers should assess their institutional culture and resolve conflicts between their campaign and their management traditions.