The History of The Faculty Federation,

or Why We Have a Union

HUMBLE BEGINNINGS

The Art Institute of Philadelphia was created by Philadelphia commercial artist Phil Tractman, who opened the school on 9th Street in 1972. The school was pretty small in those days—most faculty members were free-lance professionals who taught only a few hours a week. When disputes arose between faculty and administration they were settled informally.

The Art Institute prospered and in 1980, Tractman sold the school to Education Management Corporation, a Pittsburgh-based holding company owned by Robert B. Knutson, who moved the school to its present location. Under EMC's ownership AIPH expanded rapidly—programs and faculty were added. Despite EMC's pronouncements that it was a "people company", very few personnel policies were in place and those that did exist ignored the pedagogical needs of the faculty. The local administration seemed content to make decisions about working conditions exclusively for its own convenience regardless of how those decisions affected its workers. And administration wasn't terribly interested in working with the faculty to resolve problems, leaving aggrieved faculty with little recourse beyond acceptance or resignation.

MORE WORK/LESS PAY

Until 1993, classes were five hours long. Full-time faculty taught five classes for a load of 25 hours per week (big load by academic standards), while part-timers received five paid hours for each class taught.

In July 1983, classes were shortened from five hours to four and the full-time load adjusted from 25 hours to 24. While this reduction made pedagogical sense, it was an economic nightmare. Part-time salaries were effectively reduced by 20%, while the full-time workload was increased by the same amount. Of course, full-timers would receive no additional pay for the extra work, but EMC magnanimously offered that full-timers wouldn't be docked for the hour they were no longer teaching.

The faculty were outraged. At first, administration refused any dialogue, but as faculty rancor grew administration formed committees and held meetings, although it did nothing to correct matters. Because there were no grievance procedures or contractual protection of any kind faculty could be dismissed for "cause" and "cause" could mean complaining about arbitrary treatment. Faculty had to "put up" and "shut up" if they wanted to keep their jobs.

THE "WHITE PAPER"

In the absence of change the faculty created a senate to further its interests which prompted administration to suggest the faculty outline its concerns. Anger over the summary reduction in salaries and increased full-time work load released many long-time discontents. Unfavorable salaries and teaching loads compared to competing schools; lack of policy for sick days, sabbaticals, office space and evaluations; and studio/lecture differential, as well as the number of different courses faculty were required to prepare were covered in what became known as the "White Paper." The faculty formed committees and a freewheeling exchange took place. For awhile, it looked like EMC really would listen and changes might occur.

STILL MORE WORK/NOT MUCH MORE PAY

The "White Paper" was presented in March 1984. Faculty received a pay raise and retroactive compensation for part-timers. Some saw the raises as a small gain, others, a buy out.

But money wasn't the major issue, and beyond providing pay raises EMC's response ignored the other substantive issues raised in the "White Paper." To mollify a still restive faculty, management announced in June of 1984, that personnel policies would be in place within two years.

Two months later, in August 1984, the administration abruptly declared the faculty senate unacceptable and threatened to fire the senate president if the senate wasn't dissolved. But dissolving the faculty senate brought no concessions from EMC; from that point on, despite continued faculty efforts, the situation remained unchanged and by September 1985, any faculty voice in policy development had been effectively choked off. The "White Paper," delivered 18 months earlier, appeared a dead issue. The few personnel policies coming from Pittsburgh were written for the exclusive benefit of management and early in December 1985, management announced that the personnel policy manual promised by June of 1986, would require 9 additional months to complete.

With faculty frustration at an all-time high the faculty voted late in December 1985, to conduct a union election through the National Labor Relations Board. In that election, held on March 10, 1986, the faculty voted to unionize by a margin of almost three to one.

FIRST NEGOTIATIONS

The first contract negotiations began in the Fall of 1986, lasting seven months while the company-hired professional negotiator stonewalled the union's team. Administration's goal seemed to be to not reach a settlement. And then the faculty, in a remarkable show of unity, boycotted the All Faculty Meeting in December 1986, en masse. Following the boycott the Union began to make progress at the negotiating table and finally, in March 1987, the first contract for two-years was signed.

While the union didn't achieve all its goals, this first contract rectified the basic inequities at AiPH. A grievance procedure was established, a seniority system gave some order to class assignments, a just cause provision relieved arbitrary discipline and dismissal, and Fashion faculty were at last allowed to have a glass of water with them during a two-hour lecture.

MERIT PAY AND THE LAWSUIT

That first contract only set wages for the first year, leaving the second year open to negotiation. In that negotiation administration announced it would not use performance as the criteria for awarding merit pay. Administration acted unilaterally in applying merit pay by seniority, despite the union's threats of legal action.

The union filed a grievance. By the Spring of 1989, the grievance had been arbitrated in the union's favor but the arbitrator left the method of pay redistribution to the school. When the school's president at this time, the egregious Mike Harter, attempted to evade implementing the arbitrator's decision the union filed suit in federal court; the suit was withdrawn after the union and EMC management negotiated a fair settlement. Because the settlement was negotiated directly with corporate management in Pittsburgh it also signalled a general up-turn in relations between the union and management.

THE SECOND CONTRACT

The second contract, for three years, was negotiated over six weeks in the Winter of 1989. Once again, EMC hired a "gun", but there was less stonewalling. Among the contract's achievements were an increase in the number of sabbaticals, the right of full-time faculty to teach reduced loads in the Summer without a reduction in benefits and EMC contributions towards spousal and family coverage for both full- and part-time faculty.

THE THIRD CONTRACT

During the Winter of 1992, the union sat down with management to work out our third contract. This negotiation was notable for the fact that EMC sent one of its own to negotiate directly with us and for the absence of attorneys at the table. The economy was in recession, so there were no significant gains on the economic front. However, merit pay was eliminated, part-time faculty received some additional health benefit contributions and sabbaticals were created for the part-time faculty.

THE FOURTH CONTRACT

In 1994, administration was striving to open a Culinary Arts program in Philadelphia and wanted major concessions in work hours for the proposed culinary faculty. As a result, the union made progress towards almost all of its major objectives, the only exception being some contractual cap on class size which, as the school continued to grow and add more academic subjects, was becoming a major issue. Most notable was the inclusion of salary floors, which aided several severely underpaid employees.

THE FIFTH CONTRACT

In the fifth contract, negotiated in the Spring of 1997, negotiations seemed to progress smoothly until the union's key economic demand for some limit to class size. Up until noon of the last day of the contract extension, it looked to the negotiating committee that there would be a strike. With class size being a major educational issue both nationally and in the region, as well as the number one concern of faculty at AIPH, the union leadership considered asking its membership to support a walkout over that issue. Fortunately, management returned to the table after lunch on the last day with a reasonable proposal and negotiations were concluded in short order. A cap on class size was realized, along with major security gains for part-time faculty.

CONTRACT #6

Meeting at the table in the year 2000, one of the major issues for the Federation was some reduction in contact hours. AiPH had been looking to change its accrediting body, offer academic associates degrees and bachelor's degrees as well. It was time for the whole school to move towards a more academic environment.

The accrediting bodies and the state, who visited AiPH in 1999, in conjunction with the school's application to offer academic degrees, took issue with the fact that AiPH faculty were often without any kind of designated time for student contact outside of class—office hours. The union had prepared a proposal, but was superceded when administration came to the table with the offer to reduce contact hours for all full-time faculty by one class and replace the missing class with office hours. Full-time faculty in academic and design programs dropped from 24 contact hours to 20, with four office hours, while culinary faculty dropped from 30 contact hours to 24, with four office hours.

Into The Future

While the basic foundation of faculty-administration relations was established with the first contract, there is still much to do in the face of a changing economy and a changing school. The union is focused on consolidating the gains it has made on behalf of faculty and expanding those areas where it can.

We've come far from those powerless days when department directors hired their friends and prohibited faculty from having even a glass of water during a lecture. Faculty who are aggrieved now have a union behind them, to back them up and fight for them when they have to.