The study was designed to ascertain the tax supported cost of implementing collective bargaining in Indiana School Corporations in 1975. Two research questions were developed: (1) What was the statistically estimated direct cost to taxpayers attributable to implementation of Indiana Public Law 217 in 1975, and (2) what was the relationship between school corporation size and costs factors pertaining to implementation of Indiana Public Law 217.A questionnaire was designed, to obtain actual and/or estimated costs of administrative and clerical man-hours utilized to implement collective bargaining, costs of consultants and/or legal services, training workshops and materials, equipment and expendable materials. The questionnaire was sent to approximately one-half of the school superintendents in randomly selected Indiana School Corporations with large, medium and small size pupil enrollments.Useable responses were obtained from 93 out of 153 potential participants (60.7 percent), which included 13 reports that no bargaining occurred in 1975. Information from each questionnaire received was sorted and tabulated by means of a computer program especially designed for the purposes of the study. The total cost of implementing bargaining within each school corporation, the total and average cost of implementing bargaining within the groups of large, medium and small size school corporations, and within the entire set of respondents were found and analyzed.Findings derived from the present study indicate that the average cost of implementing bargaining in large size Indiana school corporations, as reported by 28 superintendents, was $10,839. The average cost of implementing bargaining in medium size school corporations, as reporter: by 32 superintendents, was $6,128 and the average cost of implementing bargaining in small school corporations, as reported by 20 superintendents, was $3,761 per school corporation. The average cost of implementing collective bargaining within the set of respondents, as reported by 80 superintendents, was $7,185 per school corporation. The total direct cost of implementing collective bargaining, determined by extending the average cost to all school corporations believed to have engaged in collective bargaining, was $2,047,725.The major conclusions were that: If all 305 Indiana school corporations had bargained and experienced expenses comparable to the reported expenses, implementation of collective bargaining would have cost taxpayers $2,191,425 and would have consumed 158,905 man-hours by administrators, clerical personnel and members of boards of trustees.

The purpose of the study was to investigate and report the effectiveness of theprofessional negotiator concerning the results of teacher-school board negotiations as perceived by randomly selected Pennsylvania school superintendents.A questionnaire was constructed and distributed to 104 randomly selected Pennsylvania school superintendents. A total of eighty-seven superintendents completed and returned the questionnaire. The responses of the superintendents to the questionnaire were used to determine: the degree to which thirty-one selected variables were negotiated into the 1973-74 teacher-school board contracts; the extent of the employment of professional negotiators by selected Pennsylvania school boards; the impact of the professional negotiator on teacher-school board contracts in selected Pennsylvania school districts and the value of the employment of a professional negotiator as perceived by randomly selected Pennsylvania school superintendents.The returned questionnaires were divided into two categories. One category consisted of responses from superintendents representing school boards who employed a professional negotiator; the second category involved responses from superintendents representing school boards who did not employ a professional negotiator. The superintendents of school districts in which a professional negotiator was employed were requested to respond to questions related to general characteristics of the school district, results of the negotiating process, and information related to the professional negotiator. The superintendents of school districts in which a professional negotiator was not employed were requested to respond to questions related to the general characteristics of the school district and the results of the negotiating process.Professional negotiators were employed by approximately 40 percent of the school boards included in the sample. The greater the pupil enrollment the greater the probability the school board employed a professional negotiator. Most professional negotiators reported in the study were trained to be attorneys. The employment of a professional negotiator by the school board delayed the date of agreement upon a contract and increased the probability that the negotiations arrived at impasse. Professional negotiators negotiated a broader range of variables into the teacher-school board contracts than other school board negotiators. The average minimum and maximum teacher salaries at selected levels were higher in school districts represented by a professional negotiator than in school districts not represented by a professional negotiator. The most frequently given reason for employing a professional negotiator was to reduce teacher-administrator tension. Over 90 percent of the superintendents included in the sample expressed satisfaction with the professional negotiator employed by the school board.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--Oregon State University, 2009. / Printout. Includes bibliographical references (leaves 204-210). Also available on the World Wide Web.

Thesis (M.Ed.(Onderwysbestuur, Reg- en Beleidstudies))--Universiteit van Pretoria, 2008. / Includes bibliographical references.

The problem with which this study is concerned was that of developing an understanding of teacher attitudes toward collective bargaining. The investigation was initiated so that members of school boards, administrators, and those associated with professional organizations could have the needed knowledge to permit them to deal realistically with employer-employee relations. There were two purposes for conducting this study. First, an effort was made to determine the specific attitudes these teachers possess toward collective bargaining. The second purpose was to analyze the teachers' background characteristics to determine whether classifications such as sex, academic degree, experience, assignment level, professional memberships, or age have an impact on these attitudes.

No description available.

By studying the evolution of :interest arbitration in the private and public sectors, this study was an attempt to examine the rationale for the infrequent use of voluntary binding interest arbitration in Pennsylvania and how it might be made a rwre viable alternative to the strike. Two questions addressed this concern: 1. Why has voluntary binding arbitration been infrequently used in public education in Pennsylvania while the strike has been the normal resolution tool in interest disputes? 2. What will make voluntary binding arbitration a more viable alternative to a strike when an impasse arises in the state of Pennsylvania? A survey instrument addressing these issues was sent to 263 school districts in the Pennsylvania public education system. These school districts were divided into three classifications: non.strikers, strikers, and voluntary binding interest arbitration users. Also surveyed were the Pennsylvania State Education Association's Uniserve Directors (N=51). Each of these groups provided unique information related to the research questions. Within each school district the questionnaire was sent to the chief negotiator for management, the school board chairperson, the superintendent, the chief negotiator for the union, and the local union president. Members of the management classification were found unwilling to rel:inquish their decision making duties to an arbitrator, a third party neutral. There was a considerable reluctance by management to use voluntary binding interest arbitration. An arbitrator was not only distrusted by management, but also by the union. Management thought they lost financially when utilizing the services of an arbitrator, since they perceived arbitrators' tended to be pro-labor when rendering interest awards. In order to make voluntary interest arbitration a more viable alternative to the strike, several areas of agreement emerged. If the settlement fonna.t was on an issue-by-issue basis then interest arbitration would probably be used more frequently. If mediation arbitration was used with an issue-by-issue settlement format then interest arbitration could be an even more viable alternative. Most groups surveyed argued voluntary binding interest arbitration would be utilized more if arbitrators were formally trained in public sector interest arbitration. In addition, 100st groups believed that voluntary binding interest arbitration would be used more if there was an appeals process through the Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board if either party alleged that the arbitrator's award was capricious. / Ed. D.

The purpose of this dissertation was to determine the degree of acceptance of the referendum impasse resolution procedure in education and to determine under what conditions such a procedure would be most readily accepted. A survey research design was used. Teacher negotiation statutes of the fifty states were categorized into four strata. One representative state from each strata was selected (Maryland, Pennsylvania, Virginia, and West Virginia), Specific populations were assigned representation of the major interest groups in teacher negotiations (school board chairmen, local association presidents, local superintendents, and local elected officials) and were sampled within the selected states. lt was concluded from the principal findings that the degree of acceptance of the referendum procedure was generally greater than the acceptance of interest arbitration, the strike, or the absence of an impasse resolution procedure. The conditions which contributed to the acceptance of the procedure included: the district's labor relations environment; the district's financial dependency; the district's average teacher salary; the district's community type; and experience with, and the perceptions of, other impasse resolution procedures used in the district. The study provided several implications for the education profession. The referendum impasse resolution procedure is a potentially viable alternative impasse procedure for education negotiation impasse. The referendum procedure is most likely to be accepted in states or localities where interest arbitration and/or the strike are commonly used. / Ed. D.

This research provides a systematic, analytical examination of the evolutionary development of labor relations in a large public school district in the southwestern United States. The Kerchner and Mitchell (1981) generational framework of labor relations has been utilized in this study to evaluate its explanatory power. Research questions included: (1) Does the evolution of labor relations in this district follow the generational patterns specified in the framework developed by Kerchner and Mitchell (1981); and (2) What has been the impact of teacher collective bargaining on governance of this disrict? This work constituted a detailed case study of the school district. Method included analysis of data gathered through board minutes, newspaper and other publications, census data, contract and arbitration history data and semi-structured interviews with persons who played key roles in district labor relations. Findings indicate that generational development in this district has evolved along the lines of the Kerchner and Mitchell framework. The district is idiosyncratic, however, in the nature of coalitions formed, stimuli for change, and the continuing unresolved legal questions regarding collective bargaining in Arizona resulting from a lack of legislative guidance in this area. Generational movement of labor relations in this district is traced through two generational periods and two periods of intergenerational conflict. Findings suggest that relations appear to be suggestive of early third generation as the district enters 1987. With regard to impact, findings of this study generally support those of Kerchner and Mitchell (1981) that: (1) "accidental" policy is made through the bargaining process and contract implementation; (2) collective bargaining, contract making and contract enforcement in this district have enhanced the "laboring" aspect of teacher work; and (3) substantial change has occurred in this district in managerial beliefs and operations as a result of the consensus agreement. Further, findings suggest that although public participation in the district has been episodic, it has greatly influenced generational movement, as has partisan politics. Variance from Kerchner and Mitchell findings and intradistrict variance is also addressed.

The problem of the investigation was to determine the legal status of public sector school oriented professional negotiations in the fifty states of the United States. Available data dealing with the status of public sector school oriented professional negotiations between boards of education and teacher organizations proved to be disorganized in terms of providing readily available, complete, and accurate information.The attorney general of each state was contacted by letter for the purpose of completing a questionnaire. The secondary source of information was the executive secretary of each state school board association.Thirty states have statutes mandating negotiations between boards of education and teacher organization representatives. Within each state statute information was gathered concerning (1) statutory inclusion, (2) impasse procedures, (3) grievance procedures, (4) scope of negotiations, (5) employee rights, (6) employer rights, and (7) strikes and penalties.Findings included:1. Thirty state legislatures have mandated negotiations between boards of education and teacher organizations.2. All state legislatures in the Northwest area of the United States mandate professional negotiations between boards of education and teacher organizations.3. One state legislature in the Southeast area of the United States mandates professional negotiations between boards of education and teacher organizations.4. One state statute prohibits boards of education from recognizing teacher organization representatives for the purpose of collective bargaining.5. All thirty state statutes mandating collective bargaining between boards of education and teacher organizations provide teachers with exclusive representation,6. All thirty state statutes mandating collective bargaining between boards of education and teacher organizations provide as negotiable items such matters as salaries, hours, and working conditions.7. All thirty state statutes mandating collective bargaining between boards of education and teacher organizations provide for settlement of impasse by mediation, factfinding, or arbitration.Conclusions were:1. Negotiation rights for teachers have come about more slowly than for most government employees.2. Increased organized efforts to formalize the negotiation procedures have continued to be faced by boards of education in all states.3. Teacher strikes are increasing in spite of anti-strike legislation in most states.4. Statutes have given priority to teacher rights in terms of the rights of teachers and boards of education.5. The passage of legislation is no panacea for problems stemming from board of education and teacher organization relationships and legislation will not eliminate the possibility of court cases, attorneys general opinions, and teacher strikes.Recommendations are:1. Periodic studies should be undertaken in order to update professional negotiation procedures.2. Specific statutory provisions should be studied in depth to determine if such provisions are fulfilling the needs of both parties.3. Attention should be given to professional negotiations within states to determine how legislation is being implemented and how the legal status is developing in states where no guidelines are provided.4. Further study should take place to determine the impact of statutory enactments on both parties.