The University of Scranton is in the uncommon position for a private, Jesuit institution of having a faculty union. The AAUP-AFT chapter, known as the Faculty Affairs Council (FAC), represents all full-time faculty members, including tenure-track and non-tenure-track faculty as well as faculty librarians. FAC was certified as a collective bargaining agent by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) in 1974, prior to the 1980 US Supreme Court decision in NLRB v. Yeshiva University, which held that Yeshiva faculty members were managerial employees without collective bargaining rights. FAC voted to affiliate with the AAUP in 1994, although AAUP records show that there was previously an AAUP chapter on campus in the 1960s.
Throughout its history, FAC has signed multiyear agreements with the administration. The chapter is currently nearing the end of contract negotiations that have continued months beyond the expiration of the previous three-year agreement on August 31, 2025. While securing a good contract is a primary goal for any union, the extended negotiations have pushed FAC to involve more members as active participants and to approach bargaining more creatively.
We learned more about FAC from its officers.
What unique challenges and opportunities does FAC experience as a faculty union at a private, religiously affiliated university?
No university is immune from the changing landscape of higher education, but living out the mission for a Catholic and Jesuit university provides a particular lens for addressing these pressures. Jesuit education emphasizes solidarity and the formation of people who act with others, not over them—people oriented toward service, justice, and the common good. From FAC’s perspective, bargaining a fair contract is therefore a mission-aligned responsibility, not a distraction from it.
A Catholic and Jesuit university supports this mission by its commitments to protecting academic freedom, promoting fair compensation, and maintaining transparent processes for shared governance. Genuine engagement of the administration with the faculty union provides a durable structure to uphold these responsibilities over time. Both the university as a whole and the faculty union should model for students core values such as ethical leadership, collaboration, and justice.
In the current round of contract negotiations, we experienced bargaining that fell short of the transparency, engagement, and shared concern for the whole person that a Jesuit institution professes to champion. Extended periods without progress, inconsistent administrative readiness for negotiations, and limited substantive dialogue strained trust and lowered morale. These tensions extended beyond bargaining to affect the climate in which faculty work, with implications for the students and communities the university seeks to serve.
As a union at a private, religiously affiliated university, FAC faces the challenge of advocating firmly for faculty while the administration sometimes invokes mission language as a reason not to maintain concrete commitments to the faculty. These challenges are not merely contractual; they are relational. Addressing them requires sustained good-faith engagement, timely and consultative decision-making, and recognition that respecting the faculty voice through the union strengthens the Jesuit mission.
What were your key priorities for this contract campaign?
FAC’s key priorities centered on advancing the faculty’s economic security, in the short and long term, and improving support and respect for our labor and agency. This includes keeping compensation ahead of inflation while safeguarding benefits such as affordable, high-quality health care and retirement contributions. It also means ensuring fair and consistent due process in disciplinary matters, complaint and grievance procedures, and decisions related to financial exigency or program discontinuance. Additional priorities included protections for academic freedom, copyright and intellectual property, and faculty control over access to course materials in the learning management system. Our proposals were grounded in the belief that investing in faculty well-being is investing in institutional strength and student well-being and success.
The two sides are in the final stages of integrating the tentative agreements reached at the table into the full tentative collective bargaining agreement to be shared with FAC members for consideration and a ratification vote. And we are pleased that this full tentative agreement achieves many of our key priorities while also staving off a form of post-tenure review and a new managerial rights clause.
How have you worked to mobilize members in greater numbers?
Negotiations are shaped not only by what happens at the bargaining table but also by the level of sustained, visible faculty engagement beyond it. In addition to maintaining a contract action team and a strong network of member liaisons, FAC focused on actions that make faculty labor and commitment to the university visible—to the administration, trustees, students, and families.
For example, during two admissions open houses this fall, faculty members without a formal obligation to participate declined the voluntary work they often provide and engaged collectively in ways that reinforced solidarity and transparency. We greeted prospective students and their families, wore FAC T-shirts, answered questions, and distributed materials describing faculty contributions to the university and the status of negotiations. During the opening presentation, FAC members sat together and visibly and vocally affirmed moments when the university highlighted faculty excellence—reinforcing how institutional success is inseparable from faculty work. These actions demonstrated that the faculty remained deeply committed to students and to the university, even as we advocated for a fair contract.
FAC provided regular bargaining updates after each session to keep members connected and informed about progress and ongoing concerns. Additionally, FAC prioritized transparency in this bargaining cycle by opening negotiations to member observers for the first time. This reinforced accountability and helped our members to feel meaningfully involved in the process and to better understand what it takes to advocate effectively for shared priorities.
How did FAC leverage the principle of “minimal compliance” as part of an overall bargaining strategy in response to contract expiration?
When faculty routinely go “above and beyond” their formal responsibilities, the institution’s reliance on uncompensated labor is masked. By stepping back from voluntary, unpaid, or undervalued work—such as extra advising, committee service, or mentoring—we expose the extent of that dependence. This collective action demonstrates that valuing faculty labor is essential to institutional stability and success.
Minimal compliance provided a way for all members—not only those at the bargaining table—to participate in the campaign, demonstrating solidarity and shared purpose. The collective actions at open houses reinforced our goal of minimal compliance and our messaging on the good work and value of the faculty.
How have you benefited from the involvement of students in your contract campaign?
Much of our outward messaging was positive, emphasizing the central role faculty play in supporting students and the university. By contrast, some of the administration’s communications to faculty, staff, and students mischaracterized the status of negotiations, suggested that fair faculty compensation conflicts with institutional affordability or sustainability, and even framed faculty actions as “withholding services.”
Students quickly recognized the disconnect between how they see the faculty and how faculty were being portrayed and responded organically with visible support. They declined to replace faculty at campus events, wore FAC buttons, signed petitions, engaged on social media, and participated in public actions. For example, our board of trustees meetings are closed, and student supporters joined faculty in greeting members as they arrived for a recent campus meeting, sharing their own messages in an open letter that stressed the importance of investing in and standing with faculty. This engagement was respectful, visible, and values-centered, emphasizing that faculty are committed partners in the university’s mission and that sustained investment in the faculty is vital to the institution’s long-term health. Student involvement has deeply affirmed how closely faculty working conditions are tied to student learning and community life.