The Equity Pay Scam in California
by P.D. Lesko
In “Parity or Partiality in California: Only Time Will Tell,” published in the January/February 2002 issue of the Adjunct Advocate, author Pam Dillon wrote this:
“During negotiations in certain districts, union and district officials have been exploring ways to allocate the funds to full-time faculty, as well. Part-time faculty activist Margaret Quan, who teaches in the Contra Costa district, attended a BayFac (colleges in the Bay area) meeting last October 29th. ‘The main topic for discussion was not whether or not, but how full-time faculty could benefit by this augmentation. Parts of the discussion I found distressing…the union in [one of these] districts has decided that they would take the COLA [cost of living adjustment] entirely for full-time faculty, while giving the part-time faculty in their district a raise from the augmentation money.’”
What, I wondered, was going on with all those millions? Brian Cole’s piece in this issue of the magazine examines at that question. The short answer to it is that some adjuncts have benefited, some districts are using their allotments as bargaining chips in games meant to weaken adjunct faculty unions, and some adjuncts haven’t seen a dime of their equity pay and may never will. Here’s the bottom line: $57 million dollars in equity pay isn’t going to fix the problems which face California’s 40,000 part-time college faculty.
Equity pay was a good idea, on the surface. The devil was working out the details. First, there were the union locals where full-time and part-time faculty were represented together. Union officials got the bright idea that equity pay could be used to pay full-time faculty teaching overload courses. The mechanics of that little scam were frighteningly simple: the union and school officials agreed to classify full-time faculty teaching overload courses as part-time faculty. Equity pay for part-time faculty became equity pay for full-time faculty earning extra money by teaching extra courses. The President of the United Professors of Marin, AFT local 1610, vowed that the full-time union members would share in the bounty of the part-time equity pay. In fact, if you visit the union’s Web page (www.marin.cc.ca.us/upm/salary99.html) you’ll find this formula: “OVERLOAD CREDIT INSTRUCTOR PAYMENT FORMULA.” The calculation goes like this: “Hours per semester: 599 (eff. Fall 1994) rounded to 4 decimal places x 15 units = units. Then Temporary Part-Time Credit Instructor Payment Formula as above.”
Then, there are the part-time faculty locals. Several adjunct faculty union officials negotiated definitions of “parity” that were simply ridiculous. At Citrus College, for instance, the union agreed to recognize parity for their members as less than 60 percent of what the full-time faculty members earn. The union officials claimed that the college officials played hardball in their negotiations. Negotiations are by definition, hardball, and anyone who’s not wearing a batting helmet is bound to get a curveball to the head.
It’s unfortunate that administrators chose to negotiate aggressively. However, the adjunct faculty at Citrus aren’t the only faculty union faced with tough negotiations. At Palomar Community College, college negotiators there have pressed the union to agree to unacceptable contract terms before they will release the first year’s allocation, close to $1 million dollars in equity pay. Officials of the Palomar Faculty Federation, AFT local 6161 have, so far, refused to capitulate. How strong will their resolve be when the equity pay held hostage tops $3 or $4 million dollars? Your guess is as good as mine.
The California Federation of Teachers put the responsibility for the negotiation of terms regarding equity into the hands of part-time faculty. They then agreed to allow the money to be deposited into the accounts of community college districts across the state. On the surface, it appears that the CFT lobbied tirelessly for equity pay for the state’s 40,000 part-time faculty, and then didn’t anticipate the pressure which would be exerted upon those same part-time faculty by greedy full-time colleagues and administrators.
On the other hand, maybe CFT officials did anticipate that their full-time faculty members would ultimately benefit from the part-time faculty equity pay money. Perhaps those same CFT officials knew that administrators would work to weaken part-time faculty unions, which by their very existence, weaken the hold full-time faculty have over jobs, governance and instruction. Crazy? I’ve seen crazier strategies. I’ve seen a union contract that allows full-time faculty members teaching overload courses to be compensated from equity money set aside for the union’s part-time faculty members. I’ve seen two full-time faculty unions in California simply accrete part-time faculty without their permission, and then try to grab close to a million dollars of equity pay.
Am I crazy? Like a fox.
