To Be or Not To Be (in a Unified Union Local)

Ideally, union membership will benefit all members equally. It’s a simple system, in theory: faculty unionize, pay dues, and bargain collectively. Everyone benefits. In practice, however, particularly as the numbers of part-time faculty continue to rise, the mechanics of union representation have become more complicated, even politicized. Full-time faculty, in many instances, compete with part-time faculty for office space, courses, benefits, research funding and pay. Thanks to shrinking higher ed. funding, and the rise of for profit universities, this competition between full-time and part-time faculty has intensified. Given this fact, can full-time and part-time faculty be represented equally well by the same union local? We put this question (and others) to the presidents of several faculty unions. We selected unions that represent only part-time and/or temporary faculty, as well as unified locals, where all faculty in a college or university are represented together.–P.D. Lesko, Executive Editor

TAA: Please give us a short history of your organizing work, and information about where you teach and what (if you do).

Charles Loiacono: I was a field representative and legislative representative for the United Federation of Teachers in New York City from 1966 to 1970 and subsequently became a NYC High School Principal. I joined the adjunct faculty at Nassau Community College as an adjunct English Professor in 1971. I was vice-president of the Adjunct Faculty Association (AFA) from the early 80s and elected president in the early 90s.

Robert Gaudino: I have been involved in labor relations since 1967. I was a building rep. at Syosset High School and the V.P. of the Syosset Teacher’s Association. I helped to negotiate several contracts. I became involved with the formation of the Adjunct Faculty Association (AFA) in the late 60s, and became the legislative chair in the 70s. I became the V.P. of the AFA in’96 and have helped negotiate several contracts in 1991, 1995, 2001 and 2005. I currently teach history at Nassau Community College.

Edward J. Donahue: The Long Island University Faculty Federation (LIUFF, Local 3998, NYSUT) was founded in the early 70s. Its membership includes full-time and adjunct faculty on the Brooklyn Campus of Long Island University. (Our sister campus, CW Post, has two separate locals, one for full-timers and one for adjuncts.) To the best of my knowledge, we were the first local established in a private institute of higher learning. The LIUFF has always been a combined local for adjuncts and full-time faculty. I have been the president of the local for two years….I am a full-time tenured Associate Professor in the Chemistry Department.

Bonnie Halloran: I have been a part-time lecturer in Anthropology at the University of Michigan Dearborn for 10 years; I have served as President of the Lecturers Employee Organization (LEO) for two years. I began my organizing work about five years ago, during the initial stages of organizing our new union at the University of Michigan. I cut my teeth on “one-on-one” organizing conversations with potential members as we worked toward our certification election, first as a member and then as Chairperson of the Dearborn Organizing Committee…The last two years we have been in the implementation stage of our first contract, and intense organizing continued because we had to push the Administration into honoring our contract.

Mike Frank: I am a Professor of Psychology at Richard Stockton College in New Jersey. We are part of the New Jersey public colleges. I do not have a lengthy history in union organizing, but I have served our local as VP for three or four years before I became local president. Since our employer is the State of New Jersey, it is vital to have collective bargaining rights.

TAA: Please give us a bit of information about your local. Is it affiliated? Unified? Number of members [if a unified local, please let us know how many or what percentage of your members are full- and part-time faculty]? Annual operating budget?

Loiacono: The Adjunct Faculty Association began its history as a member of NYSUT and the AFT. The full-time union (Nassau Community College Federation of Teachers) was a separate local within NYSUT and the AFT. After continued attempts on the part of NYSUT and the AFT to create one union at NCC, and after repeated threats to foist one union upon the adjunct faculty, with the usual subordinate relationship of adjunct to full-timer, we disaffiliated. Our bargaining unit is 3,000 strong with 2,500 teaching faculty and 500 professional staff. We teach about 54 percent of all courses. The full-time faculty number about 535 teaching faculty and about 100 professional staff. Our operating budget is about $500,000 per year.

Gaudino: Our union is not affiliated with any other labor organization. We were once a part the New York State United Teachers, AFT-AFL-CIO. We broke away in 1983, because the parent union could not fairly represent the needs of the adjuncts and the full-timers in the same union.

Donahue: As mentioned, we are a unified local affiliated with NYSUT (AFT). We have approximately 450 members, of which 235 are full-timers and the rest are adjuncts. Our annual budget is ~$180,000. This is used for payment of NYSUT dues and also to pay dental insurance premiums….

Halloran: Our bargaining unit consists of all non-tenure track faculty (except clinical appointments) at the University of Michigan Ann Arbor, Flint and Dearborn. We are affiliated with the American Federation of Teachers, AFT Michigan and AFL-CIO. Unit size: 1350 (1/3 FT / 2/3 PT). [Editor’s note: LEO’s annual operating budget is in excess of $100,000 per year.]

Frank: We are unified and represent all full-time faculty, professional staff and adjuncts. We have about 400 members, and about 90 are part-time, adjunct faculty who teach at most two courses per year. We operate on a local budget of about 80K, and most of that money is spent on building solidarity.

TAA: Please define for our readers the difference between a unified local and an adjunct-only local.

Loiacono: A world of difference can be the only definition. Anyone who sees an advantage in an adjunct faculty being part of a full-time faculty local has his head in the sand. There is an inherent conflict of interest in a full-time faculty protecting its lion’s share of the budget, its perks, its collegiality, and its unassailable belief in itself as a privileged class. Full-timers will always look upon adjuncts as “something joined or added to another thing but not essentially part of it.” Unified unions have traditionally confirmed this dichotomy. Where adjuncts have been absorbed into unified locals, they have been given the leavings. Contracts merely codify their subordinate position.

Gaudino: The unified local is one in which both adjuncts and full-timers are represented by whomever is elected to do so, always full-timers, who always demand greater voting power than the adjuncts. Adjunct-only local is what it says and is always able to speak for adjuncts with a clear voice.

Donahue: The difference is fairly self-explanatory. A unified local contains both full- and part-time teachers, and an adjunct only local contains only adjuncts.

Halloran: For our local, these terms are misleading. We are unified as full- and part-time lecturers (non-tenure track). We are not unified with tenured or tenure-track faculty who are not unionized.

TAA: Please tell us what you consider the major strengths of the academic labor movement at the moment. Whom, in particular, should we watch? How about within your local?

Loiacono: Keep your eye on any adjunct union that is independent. Independence is the only solution to the exploitation of the adjunct faculty. The AFA at Nassau Community College is possibly the best example available. We have been organized since 1973. We were the first adjunct union on the planet and the first independent adjunct union on the planet. We have an incredible history of success with negotiated contracts since 1974 that gave adjuncts control of their own destiny. We have had job security and seniority rights from the very beginning. We are the highest paid adjuncts in the country. We have longevity pay for our senior faculty, and access to health care for our members who need it. Our grievance procedure is the strongest anywhere with the union president sitting on the arbitration board.

Gaudino: I can’t speak for the movement in general. I took note of the AFT’s resolutions in 2004 seeking to achieve improvement of the situation of adjuncts, including an appeal to full-timers to treat adjuncts fairly. What does that say for unified locals? The strength of our local is in its independence and freedom, as well as in the strength of our leadership.

Donahue: In my personal opinion, there are few strengths left in the academic labor movement beyond our numbers. The government and courts are increasingly anti-labor and pro-employer. Especially in academic labor, where a large number of locals serve public institutions, it is especially hard because of the Taylor Law. LIU is fairly unique in that, being private, we have the ability to strike….

Halloran: The pay and benefit abuses that are characteristic of part-time employment are so egregious that it is easy to organize academic laborers, and it is easy to garner public and media support. Unfortunately…state and federal policies…are creating a more and more hostile environment for adequate higher ed. funding. as well as the right of part-timers and graduate students to unionize….AFT Michigan continues to aggressively organize workers in higher ed: grad. students, adjunct lecturers and professional staff at three different universities in the state. In LEO itself, our strength is our committed membership, who actively set and participate in our organizing agenda and our collective actions.

Frank: The strength of our local is that many faculty and staff are active in the organization. We have, currently on the college’s staff, six former local presidents. Distributing the work over time makes the task more palatable, and having a deep bench makes us very strong when dealing with local issues.

TAA: Please tell us what you consider the most challenging drawback facing the academic labor movement at present. How about within your local?

Loiacono: Unity! Adjuncts are exploited because they are not unified. It’s easy for the full-time faculty to be unified. They are on campus every day. They know each other, they have lunch together, they meet, and they socialize. For the most part, adjuncts are transients. Their existence on campus is in a bubble—isolated from the mainstream, and that’s the way administrations want to keep it. The answer, of course, is an independent union. Once organized, there can be communication. Newsletters, webpages, meetings, and social gatherings can bring isolated adjuncts together. The AFA does it all. That’s why we are so strong.

Gaudino: As far as adjuncts the greatest drawback is the transient nature of the labor force….

Halloran: Most challenging drawbacks: continuing cuts in state and federal funding of higher ed. & student loan programs, hostile NLRB, growing number of for-profit universities, academic bill of rights. In our local: attempts by the university to reclassify lecturers into job titles that are excluded from the bargaining unit, university budget cuts, pressure to increase cost sharing in health benefits, impact of poor state economy on funding, programs and enrollments.

Frank: Getting younger members of the faculty and professional staff involved. Faculty who are in their 40s are hard to entice to assume leadership positions, but they are the future of any organization and need to be nurtured, but they are also seeking promotion and advancement from the institution at the same time. Some feel that the union president ought to be at the top rung of his/her career ladder. I tend to agree.

TAA: Do you support the concept of unified locals that include both full- and part-time faculty in them?

Loiacono: No!

Gaudino: I do not support unified locals. The only way I might do so is if all members were equal in every way. This is never the case in unified locals.

Donahue: As we are a unified local, I definitely support the concept. The most obvious advantage for us is that we have the ability to completely close the campus in the case of a strike.

Halloran: If by “unified” you mean FT and PT non tenure-track faculty, we find this arrangement to work very well for us. We certainly share a “community of interest.” We are primarily classroom instructors, underpaid for our expertise, and devalued as second-class by tenured faculty.

Frank: It works well for us for a few reasons. First, we are a rather small organization. Second, the College is committed to utilizing a relatively small number of adjunct faculty members and seeks to have almost all classes taught by full-time faculty. Third, inclusion of adjunct faculty makes all of us more sensitive to the difficulties that they face which full-timers do not. i.e., clerical support, office space, nighttime teaching when most administrative offices are closed, etc.

TAA: When full-time and part-time faculty organize separately, don’t they undermine the entire concept of a union? That is, how can faculty truly “unionize” if they are members of separate locals? Isn’t friction and dissension between the two groups inevitable, and doesn’t it reduce both groups’ bargaining power?

Loiacono: A union is an organization of persons that have a community of interest. Full-timers and adjuncts have no community of interest. If you don’t believe that, ask a full-timer. With all our success in the past 30 years, we still have no part in governance. The full-time faculty and the administration see governance as the exclusive right of the full-time faculty. That separation is universal. It represents the gulf between a full-time and adjunct faculty. Adjuncts teach, period! That just happens to be the most important thing that takes place on any campus.

The interest of an independent adjunct union is to see to it that everything necessary for the best possible teaching conditions is available. That accrues to the benefit of the adjunct faculty, the students, and the college. Beyond that, the union must see to the security, the rights, and the salaries of the adjunct faculty.
Separate locals make for less friction. Each union soon recognizes the other’s right to do the best they can for their members. At the beginning, our locals were adversaries. Time has changed that. Both unions get along very well. Half the full-time faculty is in the Adjunct Faculty Association bargaining unit. They pay dues to both unions and are loyal to both. They appear on our seniority lists and jealously guard their seniority rights. Full-timers are on our representative assembly and have been elected over the years to important positions in our union.
Our experience belies the assumptions in the question.

Gaudino: So be it. Until full-timers see part-timers as equals there will always be “friction.” It the best of all worlds all faculties united would be terrific but this is wishful thinking at this time.

Donahue: [As I’ve said], separate locals make a strike meaningless, and striking (or the threat thereof) is our main leverage. There is some friction between the groups, even in a unified local. However, the adjuncts do have the votes in this case to prevent a contract that is injurious to their interests. Any split removes such safeguards from the adjuncts. This is especially bad for the adjuncts, since they do not enjoy the general job security that tenure implies. In a unified local, full-timers will “look out” for adjuncts, even in a non-contract year. I cannot imagine such camaraderie existing in a situation where both groups would routinely try to undercut each other at negotiations (the pot is only so big) and, if it came down to it, break each other’s strikes!

Halloran: For LEO, this question relates more to GEO, the union for grad. students, because both lecturers and grad. students are non-tenure track, and occasionally in competition for teaching some of the same courses. But we have a strong relationship with GEO. They provided us office space and support in the early phases of our organizing campaign.

Currently, our offices are located in the same building [and this] facilitates ongoing communication, as well as sharing of space and equipment. When we sat at the bargaining table, we were committed to preventing any language that took jobs away from grad. students. Last year, when GEO was in bargaining, we met with their team to work out language to address a possible conflict between international grad. students and lecturers who did ESL training of these students. At the University of Michigan, we are also part of a labor council, which meets monthly, so that all labor unions on campus are in communication with each other, know each other’s key bargaining issues, and support each other’s job actions. The unions at the University of Michigan have a long history of worker solidarity, and we are proud to be part of that tradition.

Frank: I don’t know. I suspect that a unified organization is stronger in terms of numbers, but there are different issues and certainly in some colleges may be dealt with better with a separate local. I truly do not feel we have any friction between the two groups. Many adjuncts are active in local events and are prized by everyone at the college for their efforts.

TAA: There is a common goal at most institutions to limit the number of courses/FTE taught by contingent faculty. In fact, during contract negotiations, it is common for full-time faculty to call for language which limits the number of courses/FTEs taught by non tenure-track faculty. How, then, can any unified local hope to bargain on behalf of its part-time faculty members in good faith?

Loiacono: …They can’t—that’s just the conflict of interest rearing its ugly head. However, don’t worry—be happy. Any reduction in the number of courses taught by an adjunct faculty would break any college. Adjuncts remain the most cost-effective sector of any college budget. Without an adjunct faculty, a college would have to snap the padlock on the gates. When adjuncts realize this, they will organize and become a force to be reckoned with. By the way, I loathe the term “contingent.” That must be a term dreamed up by a full-timer. It means, “not logically necessary—dependent on something else.” Just as “adjunct” means not essentially part of something, I am turned off by both attempts to put down those of us who teach most of the courses that educate our youth. I am considering changing the name of our union to accurately describe us as the “Teaching Faculty.”

Donahue: There is a target in our contract also, but it is fairly meaningless since the administration is the one that authorizes full-time lines! Trying to use that issue to drive a wedge between the two constituencies is a red herring!
Frank: This is true. I would hope, however, that pressure is brought upon the administrators to convert excellent adjunct faculty members to full-time faculty positions. This is particularly true when the adjunct faculty member teaches core courses in the department rather than a unique course related to the adjunct’s specialty area where they have full-time work. For example, an attorney in labor law may not wish to hold a full-time appointment, but wants to teach a course at night.

TAA: There is the perception that the faculty compensation line item in a college’s operating budget is a single, huge pie. Whatever the pay increase negotiated for part-time faculty may be perceived as money that comes directly out of the pockets of the full-time faculty. Is this true? If so, again, how can a unified local bargain on behalf of both groups in good faith?

Loiacono: [A unified local] can’t! The perception in the question is true only when you don’t have separate unions. Our college budget has always separated full-time and adjunct expenditures.

Donahue: Any university just has “money.” They don’t care what the contract says in terms of health, salary, pension or other benefits, as long as the total adds up. As far as bargaining for both groups, it should not be forgotten that every class is taught by a professor; that can be (1) a full-timer working a regular load (2) a full-timer on overload or (3) an adjunct….

Frank: Pardon my French, but this is bullshit! Adjunct faculty members generate substantially more revenue than salary cost, and the pay inequity is huge. We have a Vice President for Adjunct Faculty who is very interested in pay equity, and our local strives for this position.

TAA: During 2004-2005, there were strikes by several full-time faculty unions. During those strikes, administrations staffed classes with part-time faculty willing (or under duress) to cross the picket line. Given this reality, how can any faculty union today afford not to function as a unified local?

Loiacono: Once again, the history of the AFA belies the question. The AFA struck twice—in 1980 and in 1982. Both strikes were hugely successful and put us on the map. While we have threatened strikes since those walkouts, it has not been necessary to carry them out. All parties know that a strike by the adjunct faculty would cripple the college.

Gaudino: If full-timers give part-timers a fair shake, this scabbing won’t happen.

Halloran: We have a short history as a union, but we have been very supported by other unions in general (including the grad student union), as well as a large number of non-unionized tenured faculty, who either refused to cross our picket lines or cancelled classes in support of our strike. On the other hand, we do have evidence of the administration attempting to play tenured and non-tenured faculty off against each other, over pay cuts and course reductions.

Frank: I agree!

TAA: Washington State union activist Keith Hoeller published an essay in The Chronicle of Higher Education in which he called for parity in faculty pay raises. It is a mathematical certainty, however, that salary parity will never be achieved by using percentages when bargaining for full- and part-time faculty pay increases. Shouldn’t all unions that represent part-time faculty members, then, negotiate salary increases based on a dollar-for-dollar and not a percentage parity model?

Frank: A very good idea!

Loiacono: We always negotiate for equal pay for equal work. By that we mean pro-rated pay for contact hours spent in the classroom. Alas, so far that has been pie-in-the-sky. Nonetheless, we have been closing the gap by negotiating higher percentage raises than given the full-time faculty. In the recently negotiated contract, the AFA received 3.9 percent per year, while the NCCFT [full-time faculty] received 2 percent.

Gaudino: Yes.

Donahue: It depends on how adjuncts are paid. As I said, at LIU adjuncts get paid at the same per credit rate as a full-timer teaching overload and these rates have risen at the same percentage as full-time base pay. This system is (a) simple and (b) fair since dollar for dollar winds up being the same as a percentage. We also have a contractual starting salary, so a full-timer only becomes “highly paid” after many years. Therefore, a Full Professor of 30 years employment may get a base salary in excess of $100,000, but if that professor opts to teach overload, he or she would only be paid the same for those credits as an adjunct Full Professor who was just hired that semester! This is not only fair, it is a disincentive for senior people to teach overload, unless there is an actual need.

Halloran: In our first contract we did a combination. We negotiated a minimum starting salary in all lecturer categories; for the lowest paid members of the unit (predominantly part-timers) that represented a 25 percent raise. On top of that, we negotiated an annual raise for all lecturers (FT & PT) equal to the average percent of the raises given to tenured and tenure-track faculty.

TAA: Over the past 30 years, the number of contingent faculty has doubled. Today, 49 percent of college faculty teach part-time. Do a bit of prognosticating (we’ll keep track of your guess): In five years, will full-time tenure-line faculty continue to outnumber non tenure-track faculty or not?

Loiacono: It’s the economy, smarty! You don’t have to be first in the class to see the handwriting on the wall. The ranks of adjuncts can only grow. That’s why adjunct faculty represents the most fertile ground for organized labor in 100 years. It’s too bad no one has told organized labor.

Gaudino: My belief is that the trend to employ more part-time faculty will intensify….

Donahue: No. I believe credits taught is a more credible measure than bodies, and in that case I’m sure that adjunct faculty have long outstripped full-timers. The reason is economic. Full-timers are expensive, they get more expensive every year, and they will be there for many years! Generally speaking, a 20-year adjunct costs about the same as a two-year adjunct and that is significantly less than a full-timer (usually without benefits!). As mentioned, since the Administration authorizes full-time lines, one can assume that they will keep this to the minimum required to maintain credibility and accreditation. The situation will only change if there is a public (and hence political) backlash. Since people are still getting their degrees, I don’t see this happening.

Halloran: As higher ed. adopts a business model based on bottom-line decision making, I think we will see continued growth in the number of non-tenure track faculty. We can already see this at the community college level, where non-tenure track faculty is considerably over 50 percent. Pressure from non-profits is also going to make higher ed. more competitive, adding additional pressure to cut costs. Accreditation institutions are already beginning to challenge the high percentage of non-tenured and part-time faculty at some colleges, but in our current anti-taxation climate, universities will be under increasing pressure to cut labor cost by eliminating FT tenured positions. Perhaps these pressures will lead to the growing unionization as tenured faculty begin to feel the pinch of fewer tenure lines as increased administrative duties.

Frank: This may be the case in large universities. However, I think that the smaller liberal arts oriented colleges and universities will tend to lean towards more full-time faculty members. In huge systems like New York, Florida, and Texas, I suppose the number of part-timers will continue to grow–driven primarily by money.

TAA: When negotiating collective bargaining agreements, which contract terms do you tend to fight the hardest for, and why? For example, are health insurance and job security more important than grievance procedures? How do you know when to compromise versus “go to the mat?”

Loiacono: A union must always be prepared to go to the mat.
Since we [our union] accomplished all the important rights early in the game, closing the money gap between full-timers and adjuncts has been our priority. Our two strikes were fought over job security. The administration soon learned that our steadfastness on job security and seniority were non-negotiable. Any new union must fight for job security and give no quarter. Without job security, everything else is inconsequential.

Gaudino: Seniority and jurisdiction are the sine qua non of bargaining for adjuncts. All the rest is part of the normal process. Going to the mat requires the almost certain knowledge that you can win. It can also be part of the old-fashioned saber rattling called negotiations.

Donahue: Many battles have already been fought here. The faculty struck for 8 weeks in the late 70s for the principle of tenure, this at a time when there were plans to close the campus due to the decline of Brooklyn! Therefore, this is obviously a “to the mat” issue, but one that has never come up again. The rest is usually salary, benefits and workload. An agreeable compromise is usually all that can be hoped for, sometimes more agreeable than others! “Going to the mat” should strictly be determined by ones ability to win; there are no noble defeats in labor!

Halloran: ….Our key issues were increasing salary rates, establishing job security and extending benefits through the summer.

TAA: What are the biggest obstacles you’ve encountered in organizing your union?

Loiacono: Getting the adjunct faculty together at the same time in the same place. By its very nature, individual members of an adjunct faculty are on campus for short periods of time. They have jobs elsewhere, and are constantly on the run. Often, they know few other faculty members….

Gaudino: We organized in the 1970s. We took them by surprise. The biggest obstacle now is the full-timers, and the parent [national] unions, who are conflicted over representing both part- and full-timers in the same locals.

Donahue: We worked through [the biggest obstacles] many years ago. Initially, union membership was minuscule; most professors thought it was beneath them…There are still interpersonal problems….Some people on both sides can’t stop it from becoming personal!

Halloran: We represent lecturers on three very different campuses. Pay scales are much higher in Ann Arbor than the other two campuses. The three campuses have independent budgets. Some administrative policies are centrally controlled, others are local. This made it challenging to develop a unified bargaining platform that equally addressed all member concerns. The distance between the three campuses also made it difficult to develop a coordinated campaign. In addition, it was difficult to establish meeting schedules for committees when 50 percent of our members are part-time, sometimes only on campus two days a week, or just one evening. We worked hard to address these challenges and continue to do so. Most meetings are held in Ann Arbor, our office location, so we pay mileage expenses for our Flint and Dearborn members. We also do conference calling as a component of executive council meetings. Dual Stewards meetings are held (alternate days) to maximize the number of members who can attend. Dearborn held dual membership meetings so that both the MW and TTH lecturers could participate. Flint holds “open house” meetings over a three-hour period to increase attendance rates. In addition, our Constitution has structured our union in such a way to both encourage and require representation from all three campuses on the Executive Council and all committees. We also rotate our annual convention across the three campuses.

Frank: We have 90 percent full-time membership, but only about 53 percent part-timer membership. It is hard to get in touch with the part-time folks and some of them think they are members (we are an agency shop) when they are not, so when they get a letter or note requesting that they join, they see the deduction on their pay stub and figure that they are members. We need to do a better job.

TAA: What kind of work experience and intellectual qualities make the best negotiator, and why? In your opinion, does the extensive out-of-class involvement of full-time faculty (e.g., in committees) on the campuses at which they teach, as well as their frequent contact with administrators, render them more qualified to negotiate?

Loiacono: ….The qualities that make a negotiator effective are for the most part intangible. To be sure, a negotiator’s skill is honed by experience, but the skill comes first….

Donahue: It’s always good to have a relationship with the opposition…..

Halloran: ….The lead negotiator of our Implementation Team is a member who is very knowledgeable of her particular college, but the characteristics that make her so outstanding as our lead negotiator are sharp attention to details, thorough knowledge of the contract and bargaining history, professional demeanor and incredible patience. Most of these qualities are not directly the result of her employment status.

Frank: Good negotiators understand the other person’s needs, problems, wants and constraints. They are creative and dogged. The more the person understands the whole picture and the less the person is focused only on their own agenda, the more likely a reasonable outcome will be achieved. However, they are dogged as in bulldogs! They are single-minded and energetic in showing the other side how they can accommodate your need. They strive for a win/win.

TAA: Part-time faculty can be very difficult to identify and locate for purposes of organizing, because their presence on campus tends to be transient. In addition, they often fear reprisal if they join a union. The result is that part-timers get lost in the shuffle of organization efforts. Many would argue that adjunct-only locals are better equipped to handle this challenge because they are more motivated to find their part-time colleagues.

Loiacono: A friend once said that it was easier to organize sea gulls than it was to organize adjuncts. Hyperbole to be sure, but there is a ring to it. It takes adjuncts to organize adjuncts. It’s that community of interest that wins out in the end.

Gaudino: I agree. The problem is getting the cooperation of the administration, which seems to be in bed with the full-time union to the extent that it is in their interest to keep the part-timers in a limbo of disunity and disorganization.

Donahue: …[W]e have no problems “finding” the adjuncts because (1) the chairs [union members] assign their workloads and (2) since we are a closed shop, payroll may not pay anyone unless they have either signed for Union dues or an agency fee. In either case, the union is notified if anyone new comes along.

TAA: Some argue that non-education unions do a better job of representing adjuncts than education unions. Do you agree or disagree?

Gaudino: It is happening more and more. One can only surmise that part-timers see that full-time education unions have failed part-timers up to now.

Donahue: In some respects, non-education unions may do a better job for any local, either combined, full-time only, or adjunct only. Most education unions are predominantly civil service unions, and are more adept at lobbying than at public affairs. (The Teamsters would be likely to bring brickbats to the strike!). A big part to winning an educational negotiation is having the students and their parents on your side (they pay everyone’s bills!). Non-educational unions tend to “play the media better.” That being said though, contract negotiations are always local. In either case, the parent union would not know the local issues nor would they be able to infuse any more enthusiasm than that which is already present. Plus, education unions can bring political pressure on specialized issues of policy that may be outside of the contract but which would definitely affect working conditions.

Halloran: I disagree! I cannot say enough about the assistance we received from the AFT at the national level and AFT Michigan at the local level. They provided all kinds of support, and continue to do so. Their experience in and commitment to higher ed. locals of all types is outstanding. Let me repeat that the AFT has organized more adjunct faculty that all other unions combined. They gave us considerable financial support, staffing and administrative assistance, leadership training, political access and PR assistance. We can always call on them for advice, and they can and have linked us with other locals facing similar problems.

Frank: I disagree! Adjunct faculty are faculty. They ought to be represented by unions committed to education.

TAA: In your observation and experience, is there a direct correlation between the size of a union’s budget and its success in bargaining on behalf of part-timers?

Loiacono: No need for me to speculate. Our experience speaks most eloquently. We take in more dues than the full-time union. We do not pay per-caps [affiliate fees] because we are an independent union. The full-time union takes in less, but pays per-caps to NYSUT and AFT. They have less income, after supporting the mother unions, to spend on their own membership. There is for sure a direct correlation between budget and success. We have the best Park Avenue law firm representing us. We are very active politically. We can afford the best research, and we have advocates in many fields looking out for our interest. Yes, Virginia, it’s true—money talks.

Donahue: The local’s budget is irrelevant in either case; the size of the local is what counts. The parent union does most of the heavy lifting as far as educational policies are concerned and this indirectly affects every local. Educational locals, either unified or not, are large by most standards, but they do not usually reach the level of IBEW 3, where they can run their own pension and pay for TV commercials. Our raising of our dues to unacceptably high levels would not even provide enough money for a useful strike-fund! On the other hand, if you are the PSC of CUNY, then you have thousands of members and you have serious options with your budget.

Halloran: We have 1350 members in our bargaining unit. Clearly our size is an advantage, but it comes out of the three-campus university system that we represent. We also agreed to pay a fairly significant dues rate so we would have the necessary resources to accomplish our goals. We do have a large budget, and this allows us to be very aggressive in our organizing campaigns, hiring extra staff when needed, paying for printing and promotional items, paying mileage for bargaining team travel, etc.

TAA: What is the strongest argument for including part-time faculty in unified locals? What is the strongest argument for part-time faculty to organize independently?

Loiacono: The only purpose for including adjuncts in a unified local is to keep them under control. There should be a law against it. There is no substitute for independence. One day, there will be an international union representing all adjuncts in the nation. It will be one of the biggest, most powerful umbrella organizations representing independent adjunct unions in every state. I hope I’m here to see it.

Gaudino: In unity there is strength, but unity demands equality. It does not exist. Part-time faculty have their own concerns that full-time faculty seems to shunt aside. Part-timers can present their concerns to administration clearly without the fog of full-time worries over turf and empires.

Donahue: The strongest argument for a unified local is unity. They can’t “divide and conquer….” If a local can strike, division makes the strike meaningless. Also, adjuncts come in two flavors–those doing it for extra money, and those trying to scratch out a living. An adjunct-only union would seem to me to therefore have limited leadership. Those that have other full-time jobs wouldn’t care and the rest wouldn’t have the time. Every union needs dedicated leadership, but this would seem to be more uneven in a part-time union.

Halloran: For unified locals: it prevents the administration from playing off workers against each other, and raises the level of group consciousness and solidarity of academic workers. For separate PT locals: bargaining issues are more narrowly focused; [there is] less potential of internal divisions in a local.

Frank: In numbers there is strength.

TAA: Which three universities (excluding your own) now have the strongest contracts in terms of part-time faculty rights and interests? What makes these contracts strong?

Loiacono: I’ll leave that for your research team to answer.

Gaudino: Only recently have I seen evidence of contract provisions for part-timers in any context. The provisions I do see, whether they are won by unified locals, part-time locals or locals formed by non-education unions, do not include real seniority and jurisdictional provisions that prevent “bumping” of part-timers. All contracts, aside from that at Nassau CC, leave part-timers waiting for the scraps that fall from the table.

Donahue: I know of two. Pratt has won tenure for adjuncts and the PSC has benefits pro-rated from full-time benefits. In each case, these are combined locals.

Halloran: This is a difficult question to answer because locals and contracts are so idiosyncratic (PT/FT; unified/adjunct only, etc). Our experience was to look at contracts that dealt with the specific issues that we had chosen to address in our first contract. For example, if conversion from PT to FT is a key bargaining goal, you should probably look at the contracts negotiated by the locals at the Berklee School of Music (Boston) or the Community College of Philadelphia. If equity or parity are key concerns, look to locals in California and Washington State, where strong legislative campaigns have created the funding vehicles necessary to achieve such goals. Finally, if you are looking for job security language or seniority systems, you should look at our contract.