Continuing Ed Instructors at UMass Vote to Unionize
by Jennifer Berkshire
THANKS TO A successful organizing campaign, nearly 600 continuing education instructors at the University of Massachusetts Boston chapter now have union representation. While many adjunct
faculty members at UMass Boston were already part of the faculty union there, instructors in the school’s continuing education division were excluded, earning less money and no benefits for teaching similar classes.
The Adjunct Advocate recently caught up with some of the organizers of the campaign and asked them about the successful drive–and what it’s likely to mean for working and teaching conditions at UMass. We spoke with Jonathan Millman and Larry Kaye, both of whom teach courses in the continuing education division. We also talked to James Shaw, president of UAW Local 2322 at UMass Amherst, where a drive to gain union representation for graduate students who teach continuing education courses is currently underway.
TAA: Tell us about the history of this campaign? What were the big issues?
Larry Kaye, Philosophy Department, UMass Boston: First of all, you have to understand that continuing education is really a separate world from the rest of the university. What happened was basically that the State of Massachusetts told universities and community colleges that they could set up these separate divisions, but that the state wouldn’t support them. So each campus set up continuing education divisions and treated them as completely separate entities, meaning that they weren’t subject to state restrictions like union rules. And people teaching in continuing education basically got nothing: they couldn’t bargain collectively, they got no benefits, they received lower pay than their colleagues who taught regular courses. What made the even worse was that continuing education courses didn’t count towards membership in the bargaining unit. In other words, if you taught two courses at UMass, one in what we call the “day program,” and another in continuing ed., you would never be eligible for union membership or benefits, because only the day courses counted. Now those courses do count–and that’s a major victory.
TAA: A spokesman for the administration told The Boston Globe that as far as the university was concerned, union representation probably wouldn’t have much of an impact on wages for continuing-education instructors. What do you think?
Jon Millman, Economics Department, UMass Boston: We’re just moving on to bargaining, and it will be interesting to see what happens. The fact that continuing education courses are now counted is going to make a big difference as far as eligibility for pension and benefits. As far as pay per course is concerned, people who are entering into the “day” unit for the first time are going to receive around $3,500 per course. That’s higher than what instructors are paid in continuing education, but I think we’ll start to see that difference even out a bit. The other important thing to note here is that this organizing drive didn’t just happen. It was built upon the successful organizing effort of adjunct faculty demanding benefits. People had the confidence and the desire to move on. While we’re in different units, there is a nice relationship between adjuncts and continuing education instructors. That’s going to make for a stronger union.
TAA: Instructors in the continuing education division at UMass Amherst have launched their own organizing drive. What’s the status of that effort?
James Shaw, President, UAW Local 2322, UMass Amherst:
While faculty at UMass Amherst are represented by the Massachusetts Teachers Association, instructors who taught through the Division of Continuing Education weren’t represented by the union. Unlike UMass Boston, about 75 percent of the instructors who teach in the Amherst division are graduate students; the rest are regular faculty members or adjuncts. In 1999, our Local began an organizing campaign for instructors in the continuing ed. division. We collected cards and filed a petition with the Labor Relations Commission. Then just as the hearings started, the university agreed to recognize faculty members as a part of the faculty bargaining unit that already exists, but refused to recognize the instructors who are grad students. The university’s main argument, which we consider to be completely bogus, is that graduate employees who teach in continuing education are “casual” labor, meaning that we don’t teach regularly in the division. It’s pure hypocrisy. It’s very frustrating and totally invalid that they suggest we don’t have a significant relationship with the university.
