Do faculty unions breed mediocrity?
This isn't just one of the most common myths spread by administrations.  It's also a genuine concern for many faculty members, who do not want to commit to something that may impede their scholarship or teaching down the road.

You may be hearing . . . that faculty at top institutions don't have collective bargaining.
Where our livelihoods are protected and our role in the university is secure, collective bargaining isn't necessary.  Faculty at the top colleges and universities may enjoy such security.  That's not the case at O.U.

You may be hearing . . . that collective bargaining only exists where productive research and quality teaching aren't important.
University of New Hampshire and Rutgers are two counter-examples, along with the California State University system, and of course there are people prominent in their fields at many other institutions besides.  We all can agree that O.U. is an excellent and in many ways a unique institution, thanks above all to its faculty.  Collective bargaining is a way to preserve excellence.

You may be wondering . . . does collective bargaining impede research?
Not at all.  But a contract can guarantee the terms in the Faculty Handbook under which faculty accept fellowships or take professional leave.  You can see an example in University of Cincinnati's current contract, articles 24-26.  Notice that these terms do not exclude the role administrators play in coordinating the needs of diverse departments: nothing adversarial here!

You may be wondering . . . does collective bargaining take away incentives for scholarly excellence and instead treat everyone the same?
Absolutely not.  Diversity at every level is crucial to our university's identity and success.  Salary increases can be based partially on a cost-of-living adjustment for everyone who receives at least a satisfactory evaluation in their department, and the rest determined entirely by merit-based evaluations.  The current contract at University of Akron does this (see article 16, sections 6-8), and even allots a percentage to correct for salary compression and market adjustments.

You may be wondering . . . does collective bargaining encourage poor teaching?
How could it?  Rather than see academic plans developed in ad hoc committees with members picked by the administration, a contract can require that decisions that matter most are made in the standing committees we already have, with members who are elected by the faculty as a whole.  Collective bargaining bears on curriculum and pedagogy only in so far as it will guarantee that the voice of the faculty is predominant, as it should be.  See again Cincinnati's contract, article 27.1-2, for an example.  Moreover, academic freedom for the benefit of professors and students alike has been the core mission of the AAUP for close to a century now.

Collective bargaining for the collective good of ourselves and our institution
Knowing your personal livelihood and your role in the university are protected means that you can focus your energies on what you do best.  Collective bargaining requires the support and participation of the faculty if it is to succeed.  But the security and certainty it offers have not been possible at OU for quite some time.  That's not likely to change unless we change it.