A Bigger Slice of the Pie

by Mike Kielkopf

For the last several years David Milroy, a part-timer since 1988 at Grossmont, Southwestern and MiraCosta colleges, has been part of a determined battle for parity–“equality in amount, status, or value”–with his full-time counterparts in California’s community colleges. Gains have been made, but those gains have been slow, inconsistent and inadequate, partly because parity legislation allows each district–like Humpty-Dumpty–to negotiate its own definition of parity.

“When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean,” says Humpty-Dumpty, “neither more nor less.”

“The question is,” says Alice, “whether you can make words mean different things.”

“The question is,” Humpty-Dumpty scornfully replies, “which is to be master–that’s all.”

And until that question is answered for California’s community colleges, part-time faculty will remain lost in Wonderland.

Trying to survive until he can escape from that Wonderland, Milroy currently teaches more than a full load equivalent spread across four campuses. He earns around $35,000–about half of what a full-timer earns–and he must pay for his own health insurance, an annual cost of about $5,000.

“Two-thirds of the teachers–the part-timers,” Milroy says, “make one-third of the money, while one-third of the teachers–the full-timers–make two-thirds of the pay and benefits.”

For Martin Goldstein, director of public relations for the California Part-time Faculty Association at Santa Monica College, real parity for part-timers may require even more than a one-to-one match.

“In countries including France and Japan,” he explains, “we have learned that…part-time teachers earn even more per class hour than full-timers do to compensate for the fewer hours part-timers work and the insecurity with which they must live…”

Despite the fact that $57 million was first set aside in California’s 2001-02 budget expressly to minimize the pay disparity between full- and part-time faculty, most of the disparities continue. The equity pay fund in California’s proposed 2006-07 budget is still only $58 million, a shortfall of nearly $200 million if even one-to-one parity were to be achieved, according to the California Federation of Teachers.

Milroy says there are currently only 19,000 full-time faculty teaching in California’s 72 community college districts; there are 39,000 part-timers. This vast army of adjuncts has been recruited over the last 40 years despite legislation intended to limit the use of part-timers to short-term assignments.

“But that part of the law has been lost,” Milroy says. “Now we’re left with only the 60 percent limit [that restricts part-time faculty to teaching no more than a 60 percent load per district]. That limit has resulted in having people with M.A.’s and Ph.D.’s teaching for subsistence income for 15 or 20 years. It’s a horrible exploitation of people and a horrible waste of academic resources.”

Almost everyone on all sides of the parity issue agrees on one thing: Part-time faculty teaching in California’s community colleges deserve more: more pay, more benefits, more respect. But how are those gains to be achieved? Ah, there’s the rub. The California Part-time Faculty Association’s current idea is the legislation it’s sponsoring, SB 847, which would allow part-time faculty to teach up to 80 percent of a full-time load per school instead of only 60 percent per district, the current legal limit.

“Teaching is teaching,” Goldstein says, “and we all do just about the same amount of work per class that we teach, because we’re teachers … We usually put in more than our fair share of time per class, only part-timers are paid less for it. We exploit ourselves because we care just as much about what we do as FTers, and do as much work per class, but get paid less for it.”

How much less? It varies per district, but Milroy says this is typical: A full-time teacher is paid about $15,000 per semester per class taught, a part-timer about $4,000.

“The difference,” Milroy says, “is that full-time faculty are paid for an hour of class time, an hour of preparation time and 15 minutes of office hours for every hour they teach. Part-time faculty are only paid for the hour they teach.”

Michael Ludder, adjunct instructor of political science at Santa Rosa Junior College and Sonoma State University, also authors The Bootleg, an adjunct newsletter. Ludder says adjuncts are paid 63 cents for every dollar paid to full-timers. He estimates that teaching part-time at that pay rate has cost him $100,000 over an eight-year period compared to what he would have been paid if he were full-time.

But the CPFA’s proposed legislation, sponsored by California State Senator Denise Ducheny (D-Chula Vista), wouldn’t help, according to Michael Ward. Ward is a part-time history instructor at Ventura College, California State University at Northridge, and College of the Canyons. Although he is also president of Part-Time Faculty United AFT Local 6262 at College of the Canyons, Ward emphasizes his comments to the Adjunct Advocate represent his personal views only.

“On its face, the 80 percent proposal sounds great and it sounds fair,” Ward concedes. “But a minority of us is concerned that if this change happened it would result in further exploitation of part-timers by administrators. The 75-25 law [introduced in 1988] that says at least 75 percent of courses should be taught by full-time staff, no more than 25 percent by part-timers, was written with the intent of promoting more full-time positions. But administrators are playing with the numbers and, in some documented cases, are outright lying to avoid fulfilling the law.”

According to the CPFA, courses taught by full-timers have actually declined from about 63 percent when the 75-25 law, AB 1725, was passed, to about 62 percent now. The law has clearly been ineffective.

“Too many full-timers who resign or retire are being replaced with part-timers,” Ward says. “What’s to stop this from continuing and getting worse if the 80 percent proposal is passed? The negative feedback I’ve had is that 80 percent would undermine and betray our efforts at parity. I don’t think we part-timers can support 80 percent without putting teeth into the laws we already have.

“I predict that allowing part-timers to work 80 percent at a single school would only feed into the desire of administrators to cut labor costs and weaken the strength of faculty overall, and of faculty unions. This isn’t a full-time vs. part-time issue. This is a faculty vs. administrators issue. This is about serving students and providing quality education instead of operating bottom-line corporate institutions.

“Administrators are watching this, and I think they believe 80 percent would be great–for them. I’ve seen some administrators do some despicable things. In the bigger picture, I just think we have too much to lose by adopting the 80 percent proposal.”

Peter Berkow, a full-time faculty member at Shasta College in Redding, sees both sides.

“I started my career as a part-time instructor. It was frustrating to know I could pay the bills if they would just let me teach one more class, and there were classes that needed teaching. However, the 60 percent rule was in place. I’ve never forgotten how used and abused I felt, and I try my best to support the adjunct faculty at our college because of that.

“I really support the adjunct faculty members on my campus. My heart goes out to them. I always make a point of getting together with them just to hear what’s going on in their lives.”

What’s going on is often unpleasant, sad, even tragic.

“When I started back in 1989, I was just so overjoyed to have that full 60 percent load consistently that I didn’t look at the big picture,” says Lee Loots, a part-time speech instructor at Diablo Valley College in Pleasant Hill. “I now view this attitude as similar to the response of a kicked dog that is grateful when it’s allowed into the warm house 60 percent of the time… Some districts are just plain pitiful. If I ever write a book on my professional situation it would have to have a long title…something like: ‘The California Story – How the World-Renowned Open Door to Higher Education for Everyone is Made Possible by Adjunct Exploitation.’”

Milroy, this time in his role as Chair of the California Part-time Faculty Association, recently explained to the Adjunct Advocate why the CPFA initiated the 80 percent proposal and why the organization believes the legislation should become law:

“The single purpose of this legislation, SB 847, is to change the teaching limit to 80 percent, but 80 percent per college instead of the current 60 percent per district.”

Milroy emphasizes the change from college to district is crucial because many California districts operate several colleges. There are nine colleges in the Los Angeles district, for example.

“I’ve been a part-timer for 17 years,” Milroy says. “I’m teaching 133 percent of a full-time load, but because of the 60 percent law, I drive 400 to 500 miles a week to do it.” Milroy says the 80 percent law would allow him, and others like him, to teach enough to make a living without driving all over the state.
“And just because we’re working to increase the ability of part-timers to make more money by teaching more and by driving less,” Milroy says, “doesn’t mean we aren’t still working very hard to increase parity pay, office hours, health and retirement benefits and all the other issues facing part-timers.”

Milroy says the CPFA believes the prospects of passing the 80 percent proposal are good, although the legislative process has several months to go.

He explains: “We’ve already talked with many senators and members of the assembly and they’re in favor of it (SB 847). The only thing is, the 60 percent law has been around for so long people are used to it and it’s like the law of gravity now. But when you explain it, people seem to understand it and support it. It’s better for students and it’s better for part-time faculty.

“If we increase the legal work load per campus, a part-timer would be more involved with one campus. People who negotiate contracts are full-time faculty, and they have not been able to represent part-time faculty very well, for whatever reason. This has resulted in the lack of equity part-timers suffer now. As part-timers spend more time on fewer campuses, their influence will increase and they will be better positioned to provide impetus on all the parity issues. Opposing the 80 percent proposal just doesn’t make any sense.”

On its website, the CPFA has a Frequently Asked Questions page dealing with the 80 percent proposal. Here are two items from that FAQ: “How do you know this will work? Because it already has. In Canada they call it ‘regularization,’ and such a system already exists for all college teachers in British Columbia… It doesn’t cost anything nor harm anyone, nor does it place any obligations on the system, individual campuses or departments. It simply gives them more flexibility…and we find it hard to believe that ultimately anyone is going to be strongly against that.

“Where do you think this is going to end up? We believe that with parity pay and benefits, including job security, the economic incentive to hire cheap PTers will vanish, and they will be used appropriately rather than exploitatively, as was the intent of the original and later legislation. When this happens, and only when this happens, will we finally reach the 75/25 ratio as mandated by law.” (To see the entire FAQ, go to: www.cpfa.org)

But another who doesn’t see things playing out that way is Fred Glass.

“Speaking personally and having taught part-time for many years and as a part-timer now, I can’t personally support the idea of exploiting ourselves further by working even more for unequal pay and benefits,” says Glass, who is also the communications director for the California Federation of Teachers. Speaking in that role, Glass says whatever the delegates to the CFT convention decide will determine the CFT’s position on the 80 percent proposal, despite his personal opposition.

“Other states are struggling with this issue of part-time equity as well,” Glass notes. “At least in California we have legislation in place and are making an effort to achieve equal pay for equal work in the community college system. But each district is in a different place. The San Francisco local has a model contract, but it’s not happening across the board.”

Glass also points out problems with the way some districts are allocating parity funds: “The (equity pay) law’s clear intent and wording designate the monies specifically for part-timers. It’s being improperly allocated when some district administrations use it to pay full-timers for teaching overloads.”

Such is life in Wonderland.

Ward’s skepticism includes questioning how passage of the 80 percent law would discourage administrators from taking even greater advantage of already exploited part-timers.

“Past practice,” he says, “shows that administrators will make very good use of us part-timers, and we will still be making far less than our few full-time colleagues while administrators expand their demands and programs, build new buildings and publish their successes made possible by our sacrifices.”

“In the end,” Goldstein concludes, “we know one thing. What’s going on now is not fair, and a lot of people statewide, nationally and internationally know it, and we are working to make it better–and none of us is going to stop until we get at least 100 percent parity.”

But, as many are pointing out, it’s difficult to see how accepting an increase to 80 percent of what is almost universally acknowledged as a bad deal would help part-timers gain true parity. And until true parity is achieved, part-timers are doomed to wandering in Wonderland.

Editor’s Note: You may contact the CPFA with your views on SB 847, its 80 percent proposal at: sbaringer@aol.com, and Senator Ducheny at: senator.ducheny@sen.ca.gov.