To analyze collective negotiations, the author studied the scope, issues, and outcomes of agreements in effect (1967-68) in ten junior colleges in Illinois and Michigan. The colleges were selected for having (1) signed agreement with a local representative faculty organization, (2) experienced an actual or threatened work stoppage, (3) agreed to take part in the study. Findings from four hypotheses are discussed. The agreements showed no great differences on work stoppages, issues, or outcomes, and only a slight one on scope. Key economic issues were salaries, teacher load, fringe benefits, and class size; non-economic issues were grievance procedures, academic year and school day, arbitration, tenure, decision making, and agency shop. Collective bargaining required much time and money, diminished administrative flexibility, and threatened work stoppages at a time when colleges need least constraint on their growth and vitality. The organization gave higher priority to non-economic than economic gains, especially to more faculty say in policy making. Where a district experienced real or threatened work stoppage, the issues concerned teacher welfare, not student welfare or professional improvement. From these findings, 17 conclusions were drawn. The recommendations concern funds to meet organization demands, negotiation experience, organization mergers, regional and long-term agreements, tenure policy, negotiating teams, strikes, communication, action committees, and administrative turnover. (HH)