Hunter Tower: Penn State unionization — Bad for faculty, bad for the state

Penn State faculty members recently took a dramatic step by filing thousands of union-authorization cards with the Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board to trigger a union election under the Penn State Faculty Alliance (PSFA) affiliated with SEIU Local 668. 

According to PSFA’s press release, this filing represents what organizers are calling the “largest union campaign in Pennsylvania’s public sector in decades,” with the goal of unionizing roughly 6,000 faculty members across Penn State’s campuses.

At first glance, the rhetoric is about giving faculty a voice and improving working conditions, which sounds appealing. But scratch a little deeper, the costs and consequences of this union push are deeply concerning for faculty, students, and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.

The PSFA site makes it clear that it’s seeking a legally recognized union election that will bind all eligible faculty under a single bargaining unit. 

What this really means is that individual faculty members — whether tenured or contingent, full-time or part-time — would be represented by a union bureaucracy rather than being able to negotiate or advocate directly with the administration. 

Educators often have diverse, discipline-specific priorities. A “one-size-fits-all” contract negotiated by SEIU Local 668 will inevitably dilute individual voices rather than amplify them.

Compulsory union representation stifles the direct faculty-to-leadership feedback channels that already exist, undermining genuine academic engagement with governance.

The PSFA itself explains that affiliation with SEIU Local 668 — a large, politically active union with tens of thousands of members statewide (99 percent of its contributions support liberal politicians and policies) —  is part of building a “strong, democratic, member-led union.”

But let’s be clear: SEIU isn’t just a workplace representative. It’s a highly political organization that spends dues on lobbying, ballot initiatives and legislative campaigns. 

Faculty members who disagree with these political priorities will still be forced to financially support them once union dues are collected.

Unlike voluntary professional associations, unions mandate membership and payments. This means members control over where a meaningful portion of their compensation goes — and it goes toward political influence they might personally oppose.

Union leaders paint a hopeful picture — better pay, job security and workload protections. But the real economic impact of union contracts is rarely as rosy as organizers portray.

Penn State already operates under a rigorous shared-governance model that includes faculty senate participation in policy discussions. A union contract could introduce rigid pay scales, work rules and grievance procedures that make it harder, not easier, for the university to adapt to changing educational and financial realities.

Those increased costs don’t disappear, either. They fall on students through higher tuition and fees, or on Pennsylvania taxpayers through increased public funding pressure. Penn State’s mission as a land-grant institution is to provide high-quality education and research at accessible costs, not to create another layer of costly labor negotiations.

PSFA organizers cite burnout, “unrealistic workloads,” and job insecurity as reasons to unionize. But these are issues rooted in institutional culture and leadership choices, not in the absence of collective bargaining.

Effective remedies come from faculty and administration working collaboratively to improve transparency and accountability. Unions have never before been shown to solve structural administrative problems. They often create adversarial relationships that make collaboration harder.

Pennsylvania already has a robust labor environment. Faculty at other state-related institutions, such as Temple and Pitt, are unionized, but that doesn’t mean Penn State should follow suit without critically examining the lessons learned elsewhere. 

A union contract binds future decisions and limits institutional flexibility in ways that tie the hands of faculty and administrators alike.

Faculty concerns deserve attention, but unionization is not the answer. Instead, Penn State should prioritize:

• strengthening internal shared governance structures
• ensuring transparent budgeting and staffing decisions
• protecting academic freedom without external interference
• promoting flexible, discipline-specific solutions rather than blanket union mandates

Penn State’s faculty doesn’t need a third party inserted between itself and the university leadership. It needs direct, meaningful and collaborative engagement that protects academic integrity and preserves the university’s mission without burdening students or taxpayers.

Pennsylvania deserves universities focused on education and innovation, not labor conflict.

Hunter Tower is the East Coast Director for the Freedom Foundation. Follow him at @HunterTower.