Part-Time Thoughts

  • 27 Jan 2009 /  AAUP, AFT, NEA, organizing, part-time faculty, unions

    Surf the net to the web pages of part-time faculty unions affiliated with any of the Big Three labor unions and look at the posted budgets. Hell, surf on over to the AFT, NEA and AAUP national office web pages for a look at the budgets of the national offices. I’ll stop smirking now and tell you that finding the budget of most part-time faculty education unions in this great country of ours will take, at minimum, a phone call to the union’s office. Posting such materials online, where anyone could, well, see them just isn’t the way things are done.

    Until now. Right there, bold as brass and twice as easy to download and read in PDF format, is the budget of Wayne State University’s Union of Part-Time Faculty. The 1,000 member AFT affiliate, led by part-timer Susan Titus, defines fiscal transparency for every other education union affiliate in the country that doesn’t post its budget online. Adjunct Advocate profiled Titus here

    Soooooooooo…..why the overall reticence on the part of affiliates to share budget information readily? After all, it was NEA President Reg Weaver in a Press Release who said, “NEA and its affiliates are among the most open and democratically run organizations in the country. We keep our members fully informed about our programs, budgets, and policies.”

    That’s nice. However, there are different levels of “keeping people informed,” and Reg Weaver’s NEA sued the United States Department of Labor on behalf of 33 state affiliates to keep from having to show the Full Financial Monty to members (and anyone else who could find the group’s LM-2 financial disclosures on the DOL web site). The NEA affiliate leaders and NEA officials objected to a finding by the Department of Labor that the 33 NEA affiliates were governed by the Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959. The Act requires labor organizations to file detailed financial reports on income and expenses. NEA officials claimed that  the Labor Department’s ruling was “unfair” and was “motivated by an ill-will toward unions in general, and NEA and its affiliates in particular.” 

    As I have written before, the LM-2 reports of the AFT, NEA and AAUP national offices make for some riveting reading. So does the budget of the fledgling Wayne State University Part-Time Faculty Union. A look at the “Budget Summary,” and one sees the largest line item expense is for “Dues.” Out of a total $167,000 2008-2009 budget, the part-timers are paying over $78,000 per year in per capita “dues,” to AFT-Michigan, the AFT national office, the Michigan AFL-CIO and Detroit AFL-CIO. WSU union leaders point out in the “Budget Narrative,” that the AFT paid for the union’s certification campaign and has paid the union’s “bills,” for the past 18 months.

    A look at the AFT’s LM-2 disclosures over the period during which Wayne State University’s part-timers were organized reveals the yearly salary of the AFT organizer who worked part-time on the Wayne State campaign, as well as the other expenses AFT incurred while organizing the 1,000 part-timers. The part-timers at Wayne State University will repay AFT for those expenses in less than three years. After that, the $78,000 per year in “dues” that will go to AFT and the AFL-CIO on the state and national levels will be gravy for the AFT to do with what it pleases.

    It is no small wonder, then, that national union leaders have been quoted as saying part-time faculty are simply incapable of creating a new national union to represent themselves. Using the Wayne State budget as a model, a national Adjunct Faculty Union United, with 20,000 members would generate, perhaps, close to $2 million in “dues” each year. There are, currently, 700,000 faculty off the tenure track. AFT represents 60,000 of them, AAUP 3,500 and the NEA 15,000 part-time faculty members. And what if a national part-timers’ union grabbed for their members a significantly larger piece of the faculty compensation pie nation-wide? The revenue potential for such a union increases exponentially. 

    In the meantime, a tip o’ the cap goes out to Susan Titus and her union colleagues at Wayne State University for doing voluntarily what it took a ruling by a U.S. District Court to get the president of the NEA to do (grumbling to the Press all the way). In Titus’s budget, there is $45,000 for staff, $165 for bank fees and $250 for bookkeeping.

    Most will read that financial information, shrug and say, “Who gives a rat’s bahookie?” Think about this: Over the past 8 years, the NEA and AFT national offices have taken in and spent close to $1 billion dollars on overhead and staff salaries. They’ve spent nowhere near that much organizing new affiliates, such as the one at Wayne State. Reading the budgets allows us all to see right past the protestations and glad-handing of national union leaders who profess their love for the part-timers, and their desire to “help.” Exploited adjuncts need neither adoration nor promises of support. They need to be organized and bargain aggressively for salary increases.

    As for Susan Titus, all it takes it a quick look at her organization’s finances to see that she’s walking the walk and talking the talk.

    Tags: , , , , , , ,

  • 22 Jan 2009 /  AFT, FACE, pay & benefits, unions

    Some people I know are under the impression that pay “parity” and pay “equity” mean the same thing. They’re wrong, of course. Those two words are not synonyms.
    Here’s the definition of pay “parity”:
    par·i·ty 1 (pr-t)
    n. pl. par·i·ties

    1. Equality, as in amount, status, or value.
    [Latin parere, to give birth, bring forth; see per-1 in Indo-European roots + -ity.]
    Put simply, it’s a system under which there is absolute equality. If you earn $100,000 for teaching four courses, and I teach one course, I get $25,000. No ifs, and or buts. We have pay parity. Pay “equity?” Now there’s a slippery slope. Equity is about “fairness,” and fairness, well, that leaves loads of room for interpretation. I can define fair to mean whatever I want so long as we both agree it’s fair. Think I’m crazy? Well, in California, when the labor unions got the state to dole out $57 million is equity pay to the state’s 38,000 part-timers, individual local leaders negotiated “equity.” You’d think they’d just negotiate equity at 100 percent, right? Wrong. At one California community college, equity for the purposes of distributing the state money, was defined as 58 percent of what a full-time faculty member earned.

    Here’s the definition of pay “equity”:
    n. eq·ui·ty 1
    1. a: justice according to natural law or right ; specifically : freedom from bias or favoritism b:something that is equitable
    [Middle English equite, from Anglo-French equité, from Latin aequitat-, aequitas, fromaequus equal, fair]

    Now, answer me one question: Do you want pay parity, or do you want someone to negotiate pay equity on your behalf? And no, I’m not trying to irritate you with silly questions.
    Equal pay for equal work: That is the definition of pay parity.

    I predicted earlier in the month that the AFT’s FACE boondoggle would fade away in 2009. (If you don’t know about FACE, I’ve written about it here and here.) A few days later, AFT’s FACE man Craig Smith wrote about “The Future of FACE.” Smith writes: “So, for anyone who thinks that the FACE campaign is going to fade into the fiscal crisis sunset—they are dead wrong. We need a vigorous campaign now more than ever.” He also wrote, “[W]e need to continue to put forward legislation to address these issues as a vehicle for educating legislators, whether this is a full FACE bill or alternatives. The “alternatives” to the FACE prototype legislation provide some very interesting reading for part-timers. Here’s what AFT national leaders are suggesting to their state and local leaders: “The definition of pay equity for contingent instructors could be altered to reflect your perspective of what is feasible and the best definition of equity in your particular circumstances. (The full FACE bill leaves the definition of equity up to the institution.)”

    Translation: FACE provides a license for union local leaders, and college administrators to negotiate pay equity for part-time faculty at 50 percent of what a full-timer earns and call it “equity.” It happened to those 1,400 part-timers in California. There are those reading this who will think that equity set at 50 percent is better than earning 40 percent of what a full-timer takes home for teaching the same course. Except that it’s not, really. It’s the twisted idea of some well fed, well paid, well pensioned unionist in Washington, DC that 50 percent is better than 40 percent. Getting paid half of what someone else does to do the exact same work is criminal any way you slice it. Having your union leaders suggest pay equity is a gain is an insult to the intelligence of those part-timers whom they “represent.”

    That’s why FACE is all wrong for part-timers. The legislation has, all along, pushed pay equity over pay parity for the part-timers represented by union.

    “Hell’s bells!” you say. “Why in the name of Albert Shanker aren’t the AFT’s higher education leaders pushing pay parity for part-time members?” As we are all fond of saying, “That’s an excellent question! Anyone? Anyone care to venture a guess?”

    Here’s my guess: There are people in power within the education unions on both the national and state levels who believe firmly that part-time faculty are a danger to higher education and, as a result, ought to earn less than full-time, tenure-line faculty. In short, there are people within the union who want to, as Scrooge suggested, “reduce the surplus population” of part-timers. It’s that simple, because if AFT officials in Washington and at the state levels truly believed in parity, the term papers would really hit the fan, and maybe, just maybe, the 60,000 of part-time faculty represented by AFT would have a snowball’s chance in hell of earning equal pay for equal work.

    The sad truth is that FACE, the precedents it sets, the testimony given by unionists (and part-time faculty) in favor of it, make it increasingly difficult for part-time faculty everywhere to argue in favor of pay parity for themselves. FACE supporters, after all, proudly testify to state legislators and the press that pay equity will do splendidly for part-timers, thanks very much.

    Thanks, but no thanks. I want equal pay for equal work. Doesn’t everyone?

    Tags: , , , ,

  • NYSUT, an AFT/NEA affiliate, organized the 1,000 part-time faculty at Pace University in 2004. I wrote about Pace’s adjunct faculty union and its trials and tribulations here. The bottom line is that it took almost five years between when the union was certified and when the negotiating team hammered out its first contract. Unionists have dubbed Pace as the “Employees Free Choice Act” poster child. Form a union, ladies and gentlemen, and what happened at Pace could happen to you. Well, kinda. Yes, the administrators at Pace bargained with less good faith than anyone ever imagined humanly possible. They filed lawsuits challenging everything except the union president’s shoe size. When the union won certification, the administrators then dragged the contract negotiations on and on and on and on and on….Wash. Posture. Rinse. Repeat.

    Ok. There are about 1,000 adjuncts at Pace. Out of that 1,000, 473 cast votes in the union election. Of the 473 who voted, 308 voted for the union and 165 voted against it. The union won the right to represent the adjuncts by getting 30 percent of the members to vote for union representation. John Pawlowski, president of the union, sent a message to the membership in October of 2008 that read, in part, “Four and a half years ago an overwhelming majority of Pace adjunct faculty voted in favor of unionization….” I’m sorry, but 30 percent of the membership is not an overwhelming majority by any means. Pawlowski went on to write, “The UAFP Executive Council and the Bargaining Team believe this contract will make important inroads toward addressing many of the concerns that led us to form a union in the first place.”

    The result after four years of waiting was a contract that offers adjuncts between $2,500-$2,800 per course. Up from $2,400 per course prior to the union’s certification. That’s a raise just about big enough to cover the union dues. How nice. For NYSUT. The union will recoup the money it spent organizing Pace’s adjuncts within 3 years. The adjuncts will get raises of 2 percent per year.

    The system in our country whereby education unions organize part-time college faculty in order to help them win better pay and benefits is completely kaput. At the moment, it pays more to work for an education union, than to affiliate with one as a part-time faculty member. 

    At York University, in Canada, lecturer Lyyke de la Cour earns $14,000 per course and may teach up to 5.5 course per year. As always, I’ll let the adjuncts teaching Intro. to Math figure out her yearly salary. So what gives, you ask? Why is Lyyke de la Cour earning 6 times more than John Pawlowski’s pals at Pace? Well, at the moment, Lyyke de la Cour is doing something the adjuncts at Pace never did. She’s on strike. De la Cour has been on strike since November 6th, along with her 900 part-time faculty colleagues.

    John Pawlowski’s comment concerning the “overwhelming majority” of support from adjunct faculty at Pace is an important clue as to why Lyyke de la cour is earning $14,000 per course, and Pawlowski’s earning $2,800. He doesn’t have an overwhelming majority of support. He never had it. The union was formed without it, and in four years neither organizers from NYSUT, not faculty leaders from Pace were able to bring together the part-timers at Pace under a banner of union solidarity strong enough to organize a strike (illegal or legal) or a slowdown. NYSUT and AFT let the Pace affiliate twist in the wind, and twist the affiliate did, a pathetic weakling unable, in the end, to negotiate terms of a contract significantly better than the terms of employment under which the faculty had been working before NYSUT rode into town. 

    CUPE, the education labor union in Canada, is fighting hard on behalf of its members at York University. The current strike is about power more than it is about money. You see, the contracts of every single faculty group represented by CUPE in Ontario expire in 2010. CUPE wants a two-year contract for its members at York, and administrators there want an agreement that expires in 2011. CUPE’s plan is to negotiate, en masse, for all of its faculty members in Ontario when their labor agreements expire in 2010. CUPE, you see, wants to be able to shut down York University in 2010, if necessary. Imagine the American Federation of Teachers negotiating contracts for all of the part-time faculty in New York State affiliates at the same time. No contract. No classes. Higher education in the state would be paralyzed. The power of the part-time faculty to negotiate would be increased exponentially. The AFT and NYSUT have other fish to fry, however. Political fish.

    NYSUT contributes $1 million dollars each month to the AFT national office’s Committee on Political Education (COPE) campaign. The AFT national office, in turn, donates between $15 million and $18 million dollars each year to political candidates in order to further the organization’s legislative agenda. State affiliates, such as NYSUT, manage their own COPE programs and political donations, as well. I’ve written about NYSUT’s political clout here.

    The difference, then, between CUPE, NYSUT and AFT should be obvious at this point. CUPE is looking after the best interests of all of its faculty members with equal diligence and vigor. Striking part-time faculty within CUPE are supported financially by not only the national union, but by CUPE affiliates throughout the province of Ontario and throughout Canada. For instance, when part-timers at Wilfred Laurier University part-timers went on strike in March 2008, their buds from PEI and Newfoundland came 700 miles to march with them, and with a $1 million dollar check for the strike defense fund. I wrote about it here

    Maybe the answer is that John Pawlowski and his union brothers and sisters deserve $2,800 per course until they get a collective spine? That’s one answer. A better one, perhaps, is that the education unions be exempted from the Employees Free Choice Act. Sound harsh?

    Well, here’s a newsflash Lois Lane: In 35 years, our nation’s higher education unions have, by hook and crook, by doling out so-called “equal percentage raises,” and giving state money for part-time faculty equity pay to full-time faculty (in California and Washington State), by doggedly increasing pay and benefits to their full-time faculty members at the expense of their part-time faculty members, have instituted a two-tier system of representation. The AFT, NEA and AAUP have gorged themselves on, literally, billions of dollars in dues revenue in the past decade. 

    Now, answer honestly: Are part-time faculty within higher education, as a group, better off today than a decade ago? Hell, in Washington State, it will be at least another 30 years before part-time faculty there represented by the AFT-Washington and NEA-Washington, earn per course pay equal to that of their full-time faculty union brothers and sisters. Their total salaries, of course, will never come close to parity. In Oregon, the AFT affiliate at Portland State has won pay raises for members, but they pale in comparison to the raises awarded the full-time faculty. In California, part-time faculty have sued to get out of their AFT affiliated unions because the full-time faculty-controlled local leaders ignored the interests of the part-time members.

    So, ask me about the Employees Free Choice Act for the higher education unions when John Pawlowski earns $14,000 per course, and the 8,000 part-timers in PSC-CUNY have pro-rata pay and benefits. In the meantime, here’s to hoping that CUPE and Lyyke de la Cour prevail at York University.

     

     

     

     

    Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

  • Mt. Hood Community College adjunct Marilyn Pitts was recently given an Excellence Award from the National Institute for Staff and Organizational Development (NISOD). Read about Pitts and the award here. Winners are given the opportunity to present a seminar at the group’s annual conference, in May. Wouldn’t it be fantastic for a part-timer to show up, get her award in a public ceremony, and then put on a rockin’ seminar and show the full-timers and administrators just why she won?

    Quit dreamin’. It ain’t gonna happen.

    Pitts won’t be going because, as she explained, “There is no funding for that. Although it would be an honor, I doubt I would do that.” No money for travel for the part-timers at Mt. Hood Community College.

    Feeling outraged on her behalf? Well, since Ms. Pitt has been the President of the Mt. Hood Part-Time Faculty and Tutor Association since the mid-90s, that there is “no funding” is a direct result of her own representation of the college’s part-timers. Another reason she’s staying home is that, in May 2009, the union will be bargaining its next contract with Mt. Hood officials. 

    Here’s the hoping, for the love of, well, you know who, that this time around Marilyn Pitts negotiates some damn funding for professional development opportunities and conference travel for the school’s part-timers.

     

    Tags: , , ,

  • You know how I hate just linking to someone else’s writing. It’s, well, so unoriginal.

    However, in today’s edition of InsideHigherEd.com, Greg Zobel has an essay titled “The Adjuncts’ Mandate.” Zobel writes:

    “To generate change, adjuncts need to alter one basic condition. Adjuncts need to become more involved with their own destiny. Until adjuncts speak up for themselves, nobody else can or will take care of their interests. Others may attempt to solve our problems for us, but that is like receiving medical care without telling the doctor what your symptoms are and withholding any lifestyle changes or accidents you may have recently experienced. Adjuncts must lead their own labor reform movement. We need our own national movement separate from the AAUP, AFT, and NEA. ”

    Amen. I couldn’t agree more, and I couldn’t have said it better than GZ. So who’s gonna lead the labor reform movement? Where’s the adjunct Martin Luther?

    Here’s a sad fact. There was only one flippant, crummy comment at the bottom of Zobel’s piece as of 10:24 a.m. 

    Tags: , , , ,

  • Well, how’s about I do a little prognosticating? If you have anything to add, as always, feel free to leave a comment.

    1.  Overall, the percentage of courses at public universities taught by faculty off the tenure-track will remain virtually unchanged. The total number of faculty employed off the tenure-track may dip slightly.

    2.  The number of 1- and 2-year “visiting faculty” positions listed in 2009 will rise dramatically, as colleges that have frozen tenure-line hiring will attempt to staff courses with faculty who hold terminal degrees until the money can be found to fund the permanent slots.

    3.  Enrollment at community colleges nation-wide will increase in 2009. Workers from industry who’ve been forced out will flock to local community colleges.

    4.  Enrollment at public universities nation-wide will increase in 2009. Despite the credit crunch, I predict banks and other lending agencies will continue to fund higher education loans. It’s a very lucrative niche within the banking industry, and default rates have remained relatively low.

    5.  Enrollment at private universities nation-wide will drop. With their endowments battered, private colleges and universities are going to have a tough time offering those generous financial aid packages to students. There are always the students with families who can afford to pay the full amount, but the number of students receiving financial aid at private institutions has risen dramatically over the past decade.

    6.  The AFT’s FACE Program will die a quiet death. Not only is the money on the state-level for the AFT’s grand boondoggle  drying up faster than a wadi after rainy season, the union has precious little to show members, the press and the general public after pouring millions and millions of dollars of dues and political donations from their members into trying to get the program funded in New York, Washington and Oregon. 

    7.  AAUP will continue to limp along financially and politically. AAUP’s total membership will fall as the group continues to go through the painful process of reorganization. 

    8.  For-profit higher education companies will see financial growth in 2009. These companies will continue to hire, primarily, part-time faculty.

    9.  Distance education programs will continue to see exponential growth in 2009. These programs will continue to be staffed by, primarily, part-time faculty. (If you’re not ready to teach online, get ready!) 

    10. Obama will not be able to get the Employee Free Choice Act through Congress. 

     

    Tags: , , , , ,

Get Adobe Flash playerPlugin by wpburn.com wordpress themes