The faculty of Montana State University, by far the most visible and significant employer in our area, is considering a vote to unionize. I’ve been asked two probing questions. First, why would professors, generally “liberals” and among the most fortunate individuals in Montana, organize to extract more money from citizens of one of the poorest states. Second, what will happen if they do unionize?

My intuitions are based on 40 years of experience. To the first question, dissatisfied professors feel aggrieved, ignored, and underpaid. Voting for a union is one way to express their frustration. They ignore the issue of equity compared with other Montana workers. And ironically, aside from union organizers who lust for one percent of faculty salaries, the primary motivation isn’t money. Rather, faculty frustrated by and alienated from central administration find pay the specific issue around which to mobilize.

Turning to the second question of what will happen if MSU is unionized, aside from reduced flexibility in managing the university and a bit more equity among ranks and disciplines, there will be little change.

Roughly one-quarter of the full-time faculty in higher education have unionized to influence pay and conditions of employment. Most unionization occurred in the 1970s. Nationally, the composition of college and university faculty has changed dramatically in the past 30 years. Non-tenure track faculty positions grew from 43 percent in 1975 to 65 percent in 2003. At MSU, about one-third of the courses are taught by adjuncts. While some are highly successful local professionals who enjoy teaching, sharing their wealth of experience, and are largely indifferent to the token pay, others feel like the exploited migrant labor of academe.

In general, a vote to unionize is an expression of frustration by faculty with few options and little confidence that their desires will be realized or even respected under existing arrangements. Few of those courted by higher ranked institutions will vote to unionize.

People organize to achieve social objectives or to bias outcomes in their favor. And, of course, those favoring unionization normally claim the former. Few will argue that citizens of a poor state should be taxed more to benefit the relatively well-off. However, political systems generally operate to transfer wealth and opportunities from the unorganized to the well organized. Even professors understand this.

One told me: “The data show that unionized Montana universities have received almost identical total salary increases as non-unionized institutions. Given that the union requires 1 percent of the gross salary of every unionized faculty member as a fee for their union bargaining power...it is difficult to imagine how faculty would be better off in aggregate if unionized.” This is generally true throughout North America.

Only statisticians, however, are interested in the aggregate. Folks are most concerned about themselves and those they care about. Hence, supporters claim that unionization will produce greater “equity.” And here they are probably correct.

Among disciplines, there is substantial variation in salary and opportunities at MSU and elsewhere. This is true for obvious reasons; different specialties command different wages. An excellent professor of finance has a higher market value than a French professor, an economist more than an ecologist, a computer scientist more than a classicist.

Universities, just like other organizations, must meet the opportunities foregone by those staying. This is the way the world works—everywhere. Of course the “rock stars” in any discipline, those who bring in substantial grants or fame to the university, will do quite well. A professor of Icelandic Studies who won a Nobel Prize and brought in huge grants would prosper at any competently administered school. To some, this seems unjust. They want unions.

Were a unionization vote to pass, the burdens on any ambitious administrator, one who wants to elevate the national standing of a department or school, would increase, perhaps dramatically. In a university setting, exceptional talent is the scarce resource.

The challenge is to somehow attract and keep those who have options at more highly ranked schools. Unionization implies more uniformity and greater transparency of treatment. Under union contracts, it would be more difficult to provide the special treatment required to attract and retain top talent—but there would be greater equity among faculty.