Part-Time Thoughts

  • 23 Nov 2008 /  NEA, contracts, part-time faculty, unions

    In one breath (at COCAL VIII), CSU union representatives laud the job security clauses in their contracts. Heck, even The Chronicle of Higher Education and Inside Higher Ed have both jumped onto the bandwagon where musicians play harps and flutes and CSU union representatives with really long arms pat themselves on the back for negotiating “job security” that “protects” the jobs of CSU lecturers and part-time faculty. Yeah, well, let’s not get carried away. The clauses, as I have written before, are based on appointment type and seniority. Lecturers under contract can get it in the neck at anytime during the course of their contracts. 

    When confronted with these inconvenient facts, unionists generally fall back onto the “for the love of Ahhhhnold, something is better than nothing!” rhetoric. Well, I suppose. Unless, of course, yours is the “contract” job that’s being cut. 

    Well, what with the $66 billion in cuts demanded of the CSU system by California’s Governator, things in the Golden State are getting ugly. In a piece published in the San Jose University Spartan, a CSU administrator is quoted as saying that, “class sizes might increase, and schools would probably have larger classes and [fewer] class sections; there would probably be more part-time faculty.” 

    In response to this proposed strategy, a spokesman from the California Faculty Association, the union that represents the lecturers and part-timers in the CSU system had this to say: “That’s bad for everyone….Those part-time faculty do not have job security,” said Brian Ferguson, a spokesperson for the California Faculty Association. “If you have a good teacher who’s a lecturer - that’s what part time faculty are called in the CSU system - and they can’t get tenure, they’re going to bolt and go to another job.”

    Just like that, ladies and gentlemen, scads of part-time faculty all over the CSU system don’t have any job security and are going to up and, well, “bolt.” Brian Ferguson, union representative is, in essence, shoveling the horse manure high and deep for the benefit of the student newspaper and the students who are reading the student newspaper.

    If one were to believe the blarney of CFA’s Ferguson, (and why shouldn’t the student journalists and student readers?), one’s part-time professor could, well, bolt mid-term leaving her/his students high and dry. That would, indeed, be bad for everyone. However, one has to wonder how often that happens. If it happens frequently that part-time faculty with contracts just up and “bolt” mid-contract because, as Ferguson claims, the part-timers can’t get (or don’t have) tenure, one has to conclude that the contracts simply aren’t worth the paper they’re written on. One has to wonder why the union isn’t pushing for part-time faculty to have tenure to reduce the number of “bolters.” Moreover, one would have to question why the college would bother to agree to multi-year contracts at all if the faculty entering into those contracts treated the contractual relationships lightly enough to “bolt” at the first opportunity in any great numbers.

    The truth is, of course, that part-time faculty in California face a horrid job market where there are fewer opportunities, not more. Tenure-line hirings in California are being trimmed; thus, there is every reason for a part-time faculty members teaching within the CSU system to remain in their positions, to guard their jobs. Brian Ferguson probably didn’t study market economics, or he would know when there is high unemployment and economic uncertainty, workers tend not to “bolt” from job-to-job.

    Here’s the reality: the contract negotiated by the CFA calls for layoffs to start with “first, less than full‐time temporary faculty unit employees who do not hold a three‐year (or longer) appointment.” Part-time faculty are the first to get the bum’s rush. Period. The union may find it momentarily convenient to paint CSU’s part-timers as unreliable careerists, but in truth the union has negotiated a contract that targets part-time faculty for layoff first, regardless of their credentials, experience and teaching evaluations.

    The reality is this: thousands of CSU part-timers are being screwed because they are members of the CFA and subject to the contract negotiated by their union representatives. They’re being sacrificed to the goddess of seniority.

    Now that’s something that is really bad for everyone. 

     

     

     

     

     

    Tags: , , , , ,

  • 21 Nov 2008 /  contracts, pay & benefits

    San Antonio College French Lecturer Pierre Schmitz could have used a little advice from movie mogul Sam Goldwyn.  Monsieur Schmitz worked as a full-time adjunct instructor until quite recently. Well, until he was demoted. He wasn’t demoted for smoking those nasty French Galois cigarettes in class, or passing out glasses of Beaujolois Nouveau to underage French language students. He was demoted because he’d taught two years as a full-time adjunct instructor, and the district policy quite clearly states that once an adjunct teaches two years full-time, s/he must be demoted to part-time status. Merde.

    Here’s the catch: When Pierre Schmitz was hired full-time, he alleges, he was told that if he built up the college’s French language program and enrollment he would be given a full-time job. According to this piece published in the Ranger Online, Schmitz says, “I was promised a full-time position if I built up the program. I built up the program and was teaching full-time until Aug. 25, and then whack!”

    Schmitz contacted the Chancellor and was comforted when he received an email reply that said “the district is committed to fairness and integrity.” Well, kinda. It took a visit to the President of the college for Pierre Schmitz to understand that he was getting the bum’s rush regardless of the “promise” of a full-time position.

    When are part-time faculty going to get that, as Sam Goldwyn once said, verbal promises aren’t worth the paper they’re written on? Schmitz, it seems, neglected to get the “promise” of a full-time job in writing. Foreign languages Chair Anna Budzinski was quoted as saying, “Schmitz is an outstanding instructor and I would love to keep him. He developed the program, and he poured a lot of work into it.” How nice for her. Pardon my French, but anyone who pours a lot of work into any project on the “promise” of future compensation is as daft as Inspector Jacques Clouseau.

    I’m not saying that Schmitz was treated with fairness and integrity. Far from it. However, neither did Schmitz safeguard his job, value his work, and protect his rights with the savvy one might expect from someone with a graduate degree. So, I’m going to ask everyone reading this to promise me one thing. Please. Get verbal promises made to you set down in writing. Send a registered letter to the Department Chair outlining any and all “promises.” Because you know what? If your employer won’t put a promise of a promotion, raise or compensation in writing, you can pretty well count on the fact that the promise wasn’t ever going to be honored.

    Otherwise, as Goldwyn also said, at some point in your teaching career, you’ll surely end up taking the bitter with the sour. 

     

     

    Tags: , , ,

  • 15 Nov 2008 /  AAUP, part-time faculty, tenure, unions

    Waiting, as you might imagine, is not my strong suit. I can line up, stay on hold, and suffer through all of the other situations in which waiting is required, but I can’t help but imagine life without waiting. Well, I waited impatiently for the new blog format to be implemented. I like it. It’s a system called Word Press. Perhaps you’ve heard of it, or perhaps you even use it for your own blog. In any case, it was worth the wait.

    While waiting, I jotted down topics for future entries. I’ve decided to start with the September/October 2008 issue of Academe. In the magazine of the AAUP, the theme of which is “The Future of Tenure,” AAUP’s President, Dr. Cary Nelson, has published a piece titled, “Across the Great Divide.” If you have a moment, and have taken your blood pressure medication (or scored a Valium from one of your part-time buddies who can still afford his monthly refills), navigate over the the AAUP site and read the piece.

    It is a pile of composted banana peels, and that’s putting it mildly. 

    In the first graph, he writes, “…the anti-tenure mice have been nibbling away at tenure for thirty years….” And who are these rodents? Nelson doesn’t name them. I will, though. Tenured and tenure-track faculty come immediately to mind. They have enjoyed drafting off of the hard work of their part-time colleagues for, well, forever. Hate teaching intro. courses? You don’t have to, oh tenured one. There are part-timers to teach the intro. courses. Time for a sabbatical to work on your opus? No worries. A one-year replacement will certainly be found from among the droves of Ph.D.s graduated within the last two years. 

    Of course the most voracious of the anti-tenure mice have been the labor unions. The AAUP, AFT and NEA have all stood by for the last four decades and watched as the numbers of non-tenured faculty grew at alarming rates. All the while, the same unions negotiated fat raises, nice benefits and cushy retirement plans for the full-time faculty whom they represented. The unions still do that, even while taking dues money from tens of thousands of part-time members. The new way to screw the part-time members is the “equal percentage raise” mumbo jumbo. 

    For years, academic labor unions, led by AAUP, simply negotiated heftier raises for their full-time faculty members. Why? Negotiators’ hands were tied; administrators were cheap bastards; full-time faculty did “advisory” work. This meant that over the past thirty years, full-time faculty pay in some unionized colleges rose at a rate double that of the unionized part-time faculty. Today, we have the “equal percentage raise.” It’s just that, well, 10 percent of $100,000 and 10 percent of $2,500 aren’t equal. AAUP, AFT and NEA leaders, including Cary Nelson, have never spoken out against this practice.

    While avoiding these unpleasant truths in his piece, Cary Nelson promulgates many untruths about part-time faculty. Part-timers are “transient,” he writes. This is the most insulting of the myths. According to a study done by the NEA, part-time faculty remain, on average, seven years at their teaching jobs. On the AdjunctNation site, our own survey of users who teach part-time found that over 60 percent of those who responded said they’d taught 4+ years at their current job. Nelson should know that the transience of part-timers is a myth. Particularly since he had the hubris to run for the presidency of AAUP while loudly proclaiming himself a “part-timer.”

    In his piece, Nelson refers to part-time faculty as “fast-food faculty,” “vampires,” and “nameless bodies.” He bemoans the erosion of faculty “rights.” Only tenure is the cure.

    Ok. Let’s assume for a moment Cary Nelson is right. Why, then, has the AAUP leader never suggested that tenure for part-time faculty is as crucial as tenure for full-time faculty? Doesn’t it stand to reason that all faculty need tenure and the protections that Nelson writes are so crucial. Don’t all faculty need to take part in faculty governance? Don’t all faculty need access to due process, fair evaluations and institutional support?

    Well, maybe Nelson doesn’t argue this because he writes in his piece that tenured and tenure-track faculty “anchor” job security and academic freedom for others. They do? Maybe I’ve missed the numerous articles written by tenured faculty in support of higher salaries, benefits, academic freedom and job security for the nation’s 700,000 faculty off of the tenure track. I must have been napping when the tenured faculty employed by the University of Tennessee system rose up en masse to support their non-tenured colleagues when those thousands of part-timers recently went to the Tennessee Board of Trustees with a request for a modest pay increase.

    The truth is that the majority of tenure-line and tenured faculty are quislings, content to exploit the part-time faculty employed within their departments economically, socially and intellectually. Well, perhaps dubbing the remaining 300,000 or so faculty on the tenure-track quislings is a tad too harsh. After all, they’re not supporting the interests of a third party, but rather their own. 

    At the end of his piece, Nelson argues that “every campus also needs an effective AAUP chapter, an organized, principled faculty voice prepared to speak truth to power.” I couldn’t agree more. I look forward to the day when AAUP’s president stops spewing divisiveness, untruths, and heaping blame on the “nameless bodies” who are the backbone of higher education. According to Cary Nelson, the mere existence of part-time faculty is responsible for what ails higher education and his so-called “tenure” movement.

    What ails higher education and the “tenure movement” is demonstrated by this fact:

    AAUP spent almost 65 percent of its revenue on overhead last year, and just 14 percent of its money on member recruitment.

     

     

     

     

    Tags: , , , ,

Get Adobe Flash playerPlugin by wpburn.com wordpress themes