The unionization of MSU’s faculty would not be the best method to protect professors’ health care interests.

Last week, more than 20 faculty members met with organizers from the Michigan Education Association to discuss the possibility of unionizing MSU’s more than 2,700 ranked faculty members.

A possible decline in the university’s health care coverage is a main reason some faculty members are considering forming a union to protect their interests.

The university’s health care costs could be raised up to 20 percent this year, which could mean faculty members will have to pay a larger share of their premium.

University faculty members have considered forming a union on two other occasions during the last 30 years - both attempts were unsuccessful.

No Big Ten university hosts a unionized faculty. Teachers at the University of Minnesota came within 26 votes of forming a union in 1997.

Among the Association of American Universities, a group of research universities of which MSU is a member, only three schools - Rutgers University, Stony Brook University and the University of Florida - have unionized faculties.

The purpose of a labor union is to protect the interests of the “little” human workers from an assumed cold-hearted “big” corporate machine. But this scenario is not characteristic of MSU.

MSU already has in place measures to protect faculty interests through the university’s Academic Governance system.

If faculty members feel their voices are not being heard through the provided means, then perhaps Academic Governance should be placed under a microscope and fixed.

The structure already is in place to safeguard faculty concerns - if it is broken, fix it.

Creating an outlet for more bureaucracy, like a union, will not solve the problem.

Unfortunately, health care costs have been skyrocketing during recent years, which means everyone will have to pay out a little bit more from their pocketbooks.

The university cannot realistically keep up with the burdens of outrageous health care costs while continuing to increase faculty salaries and maintaining workable tuition rates for students. Something has got to give in this equation.

An increase of $5 to $10 per month paid by individuals for premium coverage doesn’t sound as bad as it would if the university was expected to foot the few extra dollars periodically for thousands of faculty members.

Financial burdens due to rising health costs are going to be an unhappy fact of life so long as universal health care measures are not looked to for aid.

We are behind faculty members when it comes to protecting their interests. But a union is a proper solution at this time.