The Adjunct Advocate

Manage my account

ARCHIVE: March 2008

March 31st 2008

2002 or CUPFA's 1984

In 2002, the contract between Concordia University, in Quebec, Canada, and the Concordia University Part-time Faculty Association (CUPFA) expired. CUPFA represents 1,200 part-time faculty, who teach 40 percent of the courses offered at the University. President Maria Peluso has been quoted as saying that when she began teaching at Concordia nearly 30 years ago, she earned 30 percent of what a full-time faculty member earned. Today, she says, the pay gap between full- and part-time faculty at the institution has grown from 70 percent to 87 percent. That is not a typo. Part-time faculty at Concordia University, if Peluso's assertion is correct, earn just 13 percent of what the full-time faculty earn.

Here's what makes me crazy: How in the name of Dan Aykroyd, can the unionized faculty at Concordia see the pay gap increase? In 2002, their contract expired. Five years later, in 2007, the part-timers voted for an unlimited strike mandate by a whopping 97 percent. Five years? Patience is a virtue, yes, but too much patience is a vice, particularly when we are talking about negotiations between part-time faculty locals and university administrators content to see what happens when a contract expires. In this case, the contract is a 101 page behemoth of a document where an entire article (2) is given over the definitions, including "spouse," "child" or "children."

I won't even tell you that there is an "Intellectual Property Clause." The University may claim ownership of computer software. If the University manages the copyright, the split is 60-40, with the 60 percent going to the faculty member. When a part-time faculty member manages the copyright, the split is 80-20, with the University taking a modest 20 percent cut of the first $100K. After that, we're back to 60-40.

Would you like to apply for a Limited-Term (a full-time temporary lectureship) opening and get some consideration? If you are a part-time faculty member with 51 credits of seniority, you will be short-listed and interviewed. At six credits per semester, that's a mere four years of work. The life of the original contract was 1997-2002. In essence, the university gave nothing to part-timers for four years of the five year agreement.

Want to know more about CUPFA? Check out Maria Peluso on YouTube. Want to know more about the negotiations since 2001? Check out Maria Peluso on YouTube here. There's also an interesting article about the plight of Concordia's part-timers here.

Join me in taking a moment to send an email to Concordia's President, Michael Di Grappa, as well as the institution's Provost, Dr. David Graham urging them both to get to the negotiating table with a viable offer for CUPFA.

Posted By Part-Time T. at 1:29 PM

Comments

Add comment

March 24th 2008

A Cool Million and Some Solidarity

At Wilfrid Laurier University, 400 people showed up at a rally on March 22nd to support the 365 contract part-time faculty, who are on strike. Check out this piece about the rally from the Waterloo Record. Faculty came from as far away as Newfoundland, Prince Edward Island and Ottawa. For those of you who missed Canadian geography in elementary, middle, high school and college, check out this map. Please note that Newfoundland and PEI are way the hell on the Eastern seaboard, about 700 miles away from Waterloo, Ontario, where WLU is located.

Along with caps, mufflers and boots to stave off the cold weather and snow, the gang brought a check (cheque in Canada) for a cool million dollars from their defense fund. The money is meant to supplement the $38.50 a day in strike pay WLU part-timers are collecting. It will make sure that the part-time faculty don't have to cross the picket lines out of financial necessity.

I am very impressed by the support shown the part-time faculty by their part-time and full-time faculty colleagues, as well as the students at WLU. A strike is a last resort tactic, and can result in financial hardship for those striking. Be that as it may, those 365 people walked off the job and onto the picket line. In eight years, SEIU local 500 at George Washington University never once struck while the union fought, clawed, begged, cajoled and persuaded officials at GW to recognize and bargain with the union.

I have said it before and I'll say it again, I think we in the U.S. can take away some very important lessons from our Canadian colleagues as they wait out this strike.

Posted By Part-Time T. at 8:00 PM

Comments

Add comment

March 21st 2008

$5,000 Executive Committee Meetings, or Why It's Way Past Time

They're at it again. Yes. Again. Our part-time faculty colleagues in Canada are on strike. The Wilfrid Laurier University Faculty Association (WLUFA), which represents 365 contract faculty, announced that part-timers are striking in response to the latest pay offer from the college. WLU officials offered a 3.5 percent pay increase. The raise would have bumped up salaries for part-time faculty at the school to $6,211 per course. No, that is not a typo. WLU's 365 part-time faculty earn over $6,000 per course. Union leaders called the strike because at the nearby University of Waterloo, part-timers are paid $6,708 per course. Wilfrid Laurier University union leaders want the university to match that. Leaders are also miffed because WLU officials refused to negotiate a better system of seniority.

Who says people in Canada are more polite? Piss off the part-timers' union by offering $6,200 per course instead of $6,700 and they'll close you down, eh? (Read about the strike here.)

I recently traveled the Loyalist Highway. It runs through the Province of Ontario and into Quebec, near the border crossing with upstate New York. The Loyalist Highway: Think about that for a moment. The people who travelled that road were the colonists who wanted nothing to do with the American Revolution. They didn't want to break with England. They were lovers, not fighters. They tramped loyally into British held Ontario/Quebec and started working on their Canadian accents.

Here we sit, 700,000 of us, south of the border, preternaturally proud of having revolted against and of having defeated Britain, the literal 800 pound gorilla of the 18th century. Forward-thinking colonists, freedom-loving Americans. Don't tread on me. Blah. Blah. Blah.

While the American Federation of Teachers, National Education Association and American Association of University Professors officials are currently singing their "More Full-time Faculty, Baby" blues to anyone who'll listen (in the case of the AFT, to state legislators--accompanied by hefty campaign contributions for those legislators who introduce FACE bills for consideration), the OPSEU and its leaders are currently campaigning to organize every single one of the contract faculty in Ontario, Canada so that they get better pay, benefits and job security. AFT/NEA have FACE; OPSEU has "It's Time."

At Pace University, after four years, it's still not time for NYSUT leaders and local union officials. I wrote about NYSUT and Pace in an earlier post. The 1,000 part-timers at the college have zilch to show after four years of NYSUT representation. The part-timers aren't paying dues to NYSUT, but some models show that unions recoup organizing costs after just one or two years of collecting dues. Meanwhile, NYSUT reps. wring their hands, and whisper that NYSUT leaders might shy away from spending money to organize part-timers in future if Pace officials succeed in stonewalling the part-timers out of a first contract.

Kiss my bullhorn.

On December 13, 2007, Pace part-time faculty union leaders let themselves be talked into allowing NYSUT officials to send a guy in a Santa suit to Pace University to help part-timers "push" the university officials into bargaining a first contract. On December 14, 2007, NYSUT officials spent $307,517 on lobbying expenses, $57,798 on stipends, $5,381 on a single meeting of their Executive Committee, $2,020 on meeting minutes, and $3,882 on food for a meeting of their Political Action Committee members.

Part-timers at Pace earn, on average $2,000 per course and have no health care benefits.

Here in the U.S., part-time faculty are now the 800 pound gorilla of 21st century higher education. What's say we look north and get some inspiration from our unionist colleagues along the Loyalist Highway? We may have to drag our union leaders away from their $5,000 meetings and $3,882 buffet tables, but I know we can do it.

It's way past time.

Posted By Part-Time T. at 8:00 AM

Comments

Add comment

March 19th 2008

PSUFA Celebrates 30 Years--and teaches us some lessons...

In Portland, Oregon the Portland State University Faculty Association is 30 years old. I came across an article about the recent salary negotiations conducted by the union on behalf of the school's part-time faculty. Interestingly, the union only represents part-time faculty who teach .50 FTE or less. (Those with appointments above .50 FTE are represented by the AAUP.) So, from the article about the somewhat fraught negotiations, which ended with union officials accepting five percent pay increases over the next two years, I jumped to the PSUFA website. On the front page is a simply brilliant time-line that shows what the union has gained for its membership over the past 30 years of representation.

When the union was organized in 1978, per credit hour salaries stood at $210. Somewhat confusingly, this is translated into a "salary" of $9,450 for part-time faculty. According to the union's contract, the "salary" translates into 45 credit hours per academic year. Thus, a part-time faculty member would have to teach 45 credit hours in a single year to earn the full salary. This is, of course, a ridiculously high number of hours.

By 1996, the part-time faculty per credit hour salary had been negotiated to $479 per hour, and the salary to $21,555. By 2001, the salary for a part-time faculty member had risen to $26,295 and per credit hour pay to $571. So, between 1996 and 2001, part-timers saw their per contact hour pay rise 19 percent. Out of curiosity, I looked up salary rates for full-time faculty at the college for the years 1996 and 2001.

According to information from the college's Office of Institutional Research, "average 1996-97 AAUP instructional faculty salaries were $55,790 for full professors and $39,810 for all ranks (after 12-month salaries were converted to nine-month equivalents)." By 2000-2001 "average AAUP instructional faculty salaries were $67,717 for full professors and $53,818 for all ranks (after 12-month salaries were converted to nine-month equivalents)." Between 1996 and 2001, salaries for all ranks rose $14,008, or about 36 percent, almost exactly double the pay gains of the part-time faculty during the same period.

By 2006, the part-time faculty salary reached $28,350, or $630 per contact hour. Again, according to data from the college, "in 2005-2007 average...AAUP instructional faculty salaries were $76,857 for full professors and $58,760 for all ranks (after 12-month salaries were converted to nine-month equivalents)." In 1996, the part-time faculty salary was 51 percent of what a full-time faculty member (all ranks) earned at the university. A decade later, the part-time faculty salary was still almost exactly 51 percent of what a full-time faculty member earned. A visit to the PSU AAUP website, and one sees that the full-time faculty represented by the group are asking for an eight percent raise in their new contract. If the full-time faculty get it, the part-time faculty salary as a percentage of full-time faculty pay will actually fall to 47 percent of what a full-time faculty member earns.

Over 30 years, the PSUFA has negotiated pay raises (though not as an overall percentage of full-time faculty pay), negotiated a health care fund (not health care coverage), tuition remission, a professional development fund and is working toward job security. I suspect most of the original part-time faculty who saw the union formed in 1978 have since retired. I wonder if the part-time faculty salary, as a percentage of the full-time salary, will go up, down or stay the same for the next 30 years. For what I can see, the union made significant salary gains in the beginning of its representation, and then gains stagnated while the union went after non-monetary gains.

I think PSUFA should stand as an excellent example of what part-time faculty may expect, on average, from union representation, and over what period of time. In any case, check out the union's website and time-line. How does your union compare? I'd be curious to know!

Posted By Part-Time T. at 8:00 AM

Comments

Add comment

March 17th 2008

Through the Looking Glass and into the National Labor College

I was reading about the National Labor College (oh, don't even ask me why), and I came upon this information on the AFT website:
FACULTY: 10 full-time and 30 adjunct/part-time. Part-time faculty voted for AFT representation in November 2007.

I missed coverage of that union drive in the November 2007 issue of AFT's newspaper On Campus. Really, who cares if the part-timers chose to unionize at the NLC. It's this next bit of information that I found the most interesting.

At National Labor College, headed by a Vice President of the AFT, Dr. William Scheuerman, there is a full-time/part-time faculty ratio of 1:3.

According to AFT officials nationwide, faculty excellence is best served when 70 percent of the faculty at a college or university hold full-time, tenure-line appointments. At the NLC only 25 percent of the faculty are full-time. Oh, and there are 13 administrators, including a President, Vice President for Academic Affairs and Provost, Executive Vice President, Assistant to the President for Institutional Advancement, Deputy Provost, Deputy Provost for Online Learning and a Deputy Executive Vice President, Director of Human Resources.

Through the Looking Glass and into Wonderland. The National Labor College.

Posted By Part-Time T. at 8:00 AM

Comments

Add comment

March 12th 2008

Unemployment 101

One of the Caped Crusaders of adjunct activism, Mr. Joe Berry, along with his equally hard-working colleagues Beverly Stewart, and Helena Worthen, have put together a detailed booklet explaining the procedure for part-time faculty to file for unemployment between semesters. Part-time faculty who are not guaranteed teaching work from one semester to the next are, in essence, either laid off or fired between semesters. According to the Three Musketeers from Chicago COCAL, this entitles part-timers to file for unemployment insurance. According to the Chicago COCAL website, information contained in the booklet written by Berry, Stewart and Worthen doesn't guarantee you'll land unemployment bennies, but the booklet will take you through the steps involved in applying.

The printed booklet is for sale ($5.00, plus shipping and handling). This is slightly irritating, considering that the AFT, AAUP and NEA national offices all had a hand in financing the project. Joe Berry explained that the national unions (AFT, NEA, AAUP) fronted $1,500 each to cover the costs of typesetting the manuscript and having a few thousand copies printed in exchange for 500 copies each. Of course I know money doesn't grow on trees, but that part-time faculty of all people have to pay to get help applying for unemployment strikes me as almost Dickensian. I don't mind paying the authors, mind you!

For those disinclined or unable to pony up for the printed booklet, here is a handy link provided by the Chicago COCAL folks to a free copy of the pub. in PDF format. I've downloaded it, but not read the booklet in its entirety yet. When I do, I'll let you know what I think. In the meantime, thumbs up to Berry, Stewart and Worthen for making every effort to help part-timers get the unemployment money we deserve. Thumbs down to the AFT, AAUP and NEA for wringing money out of part-timers for the 28 page booklet.

Posted By Part-Time T. at 2:45 PM

Comments

Add comment

March 11th 2008

Diamonds, Gold-Digging and the AAUP Elections

I like the AAUP. I really do. The organization is like a grandfather, 90+ years old, somewhat staid, a little cranky and creaky, but still full of piss and vinegar. AAUP elections are upon us. Well upon those part-time faculty who are AAUP voting members, at least. AAUP represents between 4,000-5,000 part-time faculty, with the largest single local being the part-time faculty local at Rutgers University in New Jersey. AAUP is in the middle of an effort to reinvent itself. At 90, one couldn't really call it a midlife crisis, but all the signs are there. General secretary Roger W. Bowen, an ex-university president, signed on to the Good Ship AAUP just four years ago. By June of 2008, he'll be gone, amid rumors that his leadership and vision for the organization weren't bold enough, or were waaaaaaaaay too bold (depending on whom you ask). AAUP lifer and all-around good guy Ernie Benjamin will step in and serve as the interim general secretary.

Then, as I wrote above, we have the elections. The run for President at AAUP isn't a Dewey-Truman match-up by any means. Today I am writing about Dr. Tom Guild, the challenger. I read Guild's interesting candidate statement here. He writes that, "We need to strengthen our recruitment of full-time tenured and tenure track faculty members to the AAUP. That is the membership category recently suffering the largest decline. Since full-time faculty members are financially able to pay higher dues, this additional revenue will facilitate and help finance the organizing of part-time and graduate student members." Just to be clear, currently, there are about 420,000 faculty in the entire country who are on the tenure-track or who have tenure. The rest of the 1.2 million faculty who teach in our country are off the tenure-track.

If you ask me (and you did), Dr. Tom Guild is running the gold-digger campaign. His campaign song must be "Diamonds are a Boy's Best Friend." (Please replace "diamonds" with "tenure-line faculty.") Tenure-line and tenured faculty can pay higher dues, but they ain't, I repeat ain't gonna sit around and watch all their money go toward organizing temporary faculty. They're going to want their union and their dues to better their working conditions, pay and bennies.

Then, Dr. Guild then goes on to write that "Our priority should be to encourage significant membership growth by reducing dues, and by providing quality services to our members." Good Lord Almighty, man. Ronald Regan tried that strategy. It was dubbed, not so kindly, Voodoo Economics. Hell, Herbert Hoover tried it in 1928 with his famous "Chicken in every pot and car in every garage" campaign pitch. Americans all over the country ended up homeless, living in Hoovervilles and eating their own shoes, boiled.

You can't focus on recruiting tenure-line faculty who can pay higher dues by lowering the dues and provide quality services. You just can't.

As for Dr. Guild's ideas about part-time faculty, whom he refers to as "contingent"--and I hate that word worse than I hate "adjunct"-- Guild says in his statement: "Nevertheless, the efforts of the AAUP to support our contingent faculty colleagues need to be strengthened....When we are ready, willing and able to make the necessary financial and organizational commitment to our contingent faculty colleagues (my bolding, not Guild's) we should proceed full speed ahead and do whatever we can to improve their working conditions and to end the exploitation of contingent faculty throughout the nation."

Translation: part-timers don't hold your breath expecting the AAUP led by Dr. Guild to pull you out of the shark-infested classrooms. The organization isn't "ready, willing and able" at the moment. Guild's reasoning reminds me of Civil War General William McClellan who, when presented with 1,000,000 troops by President Lincoln's draft, defied the President's order to attack Richmond with the excuse that he couldn't possibly attack Richmond without two million troops. Turns out McClellan could have taken Richmond, and ended the bloodiest war in our history, with half a million troops. Hindsight is 20-20, Dr. Guild teaches legal studies and not history, but part-time faculty should take particular note of this comment, for he's being very clear in what he is saying AAUP should focus on--first the organization itself, then the organization of part-time faculty.

Most interestingly, Dr. Guild writes, "As a contingent faculty member I have a keen interest in protecting our contingent faculty colleagues’ interests." Consenting adults have great fun playing dress up, but just as wearing black face is considered offensive, an ex-tenured faculty member proudly wearing the "contingent" label is incredibly insensitive and offensive. A quick look up to his CV, and we see that he is actually a tenured faculty member who is now a Professor Emeritus, and has been one since 2006.

Here's the bottom line my friends. Dr. Tom Guild is 53-year-old, tenured, white guy. In the AAUP, literally, 90 percent of the 40,000 voting members fit that description. I am not saying a 53-year-old, tenured, white guy can't make sweeping changes. Look at what professor Woodrow Wilson accomplished as governor of New Jersey. Further, to make such sweeping generalizations about men like Dr. Guild would be sexist, racist and classist of me, and I hate people like that. Instead, let's just say that a 53-year-old, tenured, white guy with a candidate statement like Dr. Guild's can't be expected to bring sweeping change to AAUP. If elected, he wants to recruit more members to AAUP just like himself, because, of course, the majority of tenured faculty in our country are white guys. He wants to lower dues, and increase AAUP's dues revenue then use that money to organize part-timers and grad students. He's a candidate for change, just not at the moment.

That's a shame, because AAUP is ripe for sweeping change, just not from within, and not from a candidate like Dr. Guild. Unless there is sweeping change, AAUP will end up with 6,000 tenured, white guy members, an ex-tenured, white guy/woman general secretary and a tenured white guy/woman president who teaches part-time, and "feels the pain" of the nation's 700,000 non-tenured, underpaid and non-unionized faculty.

Posted By Part-Time T. at 10:13 AM

Comments

Add comment

March 10th 2008

$500K Wasted in Washington (Almost)

If you saw $500K laying on the sidewalk would you stop and pick it up? Sure you would. What would you do with the money? Oh, alright, I'll stop teasing you. I don't have $500K, or even know where there is $500K on a sidewalk near you. I do know a great way to waste $500K. Actually, the Washington State legislature came up with the idea for me. They were pointed in the right direction by the Washington Federation of Teachers. To be fair, the Washington Federation of Teachers asked legislators for $20 million dollars. WFTsters were copying their AFT buddies in New York, who asked the New York state legislature for $20 million and got it. (Yes, I am writing about the AFT's FACE legislative initiative--again. Hang in there; we'll get to that $500K in a minute.)

Soooooooooooo, unlike New York legislators, who had $20 million trapped between the cushions of their leather sofas for the UUP (AFT's New York affiliate), the Washington State pols. were tapped out. When a politician is tapped out, that means you get $500K, instead of $20 million, along with a solemn promise that it'll be done right the next time round. I could think of several analogies of a sexual nature, but I'll keep it clean.

The Washington State House of Representatives included the $500K in their version of the state's proposed budget. The Washington State Senate did not include the $500K allotment for the WFT. At the moment, to be absolutely honest, it's unclear whether the WFT will even get the $500K. If the union does, it intends to fund 20 or so new full-time faculty positions, because WFT leaders asked the Washington pols to stipulate that the money be used to fund full-time faculty positions. $500K to hire 20 new full-timers who will teach, maybe, 80 courses a year between them, and instruct, perhaps, 1,600 students each year. There are 10,000 part-timers teaching in Washington State, and the funding was given to reduce that number. Both you and I know those 20 full-timers won't replace any part-timers.

The legislators and unionists will spend $500K on 20 faculty members who will teach 1,600 students. That's $500K to impact the education of .004 percent of Washington State's 345,000 students. (As an aside, does anyone else find it interesting that WFT asked for the same $20 million dollars, even though in New York there are 1.2 million students enrolled at colleges throughout the state? The same money to reach 1/4 of the total number of students. I digress.) So, $500K to increase the full-time professorate by 20 faculty members.

What if that $500K were given to Washington State's colleges and distributed as professional development funding for the part-time faculty? Well, let's say 500 part-timers snagged $1,000 each. Those 500 part-timers impact the academic careers of 10 percent of all of the students in Washington State. Give $150 in professional development funding to 3,333 part-time faculty members, and your funding touches 200,000 students. That's 58 percent of all of the college students in the entire state. Better yet, use half for ongoing professional development and mentoring programs, and half for merit pay for part-time faculty who participate!

My point is this, the WFT leaders have convinced Washington State legislators that it's better to spend $500K for 20 faculty members, who are going to educate less than one-tenth of one percent of the state's college students, rather than to spend taxpayer money in such a way as to impact the academic careers of significantly more students in the state. Not a single WFT official who testified in front of the legislature in support of FACE told legislators how the money the union requested could be used to improve the teaching skills and professional development of the state's part-timers. I hope someone will. The $500K's not wasted quite yet.

If you are from Washington State, why not email Washington State Senate's higher education committee leaders and suggest that allocating $500K to benefit .004 percent of Washington State's college students and 20 faculty members is a waste of taxpayer money, a boondoggle by the WFT.

Senator Paull Shin Chairs the Washington State Higher Education Committee. Contact him here. Senator Derek Kilmer is the Vice Chair. Contact him here.

On the upside, if I happen to see $500K on a sidewalk, I will post the exact location here first! Until then, we'll all keep our day jobs.

Posted By Part-Time T. at 1:53 PM

Comments

Add comment

March 6th 2008

Cheaper by the Dozen

In the Charlotte Observer on March 1st, reporter Gail Smith-Arrants broke the story of the $16,000 trustees' retreat in the midst of Rowan-Cabarrus Community College's $600,000 budget deficit. Tsk. Tsk. The retreat cost 60 percent more than the one trustees attended the year before. Naturally trustees are treated to lavish retreats. This is news? (Yes, I am rolling my eyes and making that pffffft sound). Shocking. Of course had the trustees made do with, say, a potluck at the president's house, the budget deficit would still have been $584,000. It's not as if the $2,000 the college's foundation paid for spouses meals tipped the institution's budget into the red.

So what could that $16,000 bucks could have bought? Hmm....Paul McCartney bought Heather Mills (the woman whom he is divorcing) $16,000 worth of birthday presents for her 40th. The money could buy a Sharp 1080 p 57-inch AQUOS - LC-57D90U television. $16,000 would buy you a single night in the presidential suite at the Ritz-Carlton Moscow (bullet-proof dining room included). Closer to home, in fact right at the community college where trustees spent $16,000 on their annual retreat, according to an official at Rowan-Cabarrus Community College $16,000 "could have paid for a dozen part-time instructors to teach a semester." That $1,333 per adjunct total.

I am sorry, folks. I can't get my bloomers in a bunch about trustees who were treated to a $16,000 two-day retreat. Anyone who thinks this is news is a damn fool (no offense to every newspaper that will pick up the story and run it.) Here's something that's news, and something I can get my knickers in a twist about. A college official was quoted in the Charlotte Observer as saying a dozen part-time faculty could have been employed for a semester for $16,000. The reporter who wrote the story for the Charlotte Observer didn't stop for a moment, pull out her calculator and realize she had a much more compelling and newsworthy story. $16,000 to employ a dozen university faculty for a semester? And Rowan-Cabarrus Community College has a budget deficit? WTF?!?

In the meantime, I am sure trustees nation-wide will take a lesson from the negative publicity showered on RCCC and its trustees. All will be holding their annual retreats at local pizza joints that serve beer in Mason jars, and charge extra for the paper napkins. One thing that won't change, of course, is that colleges like RCCC, with large part-time faculty populations, will continue to employ college faculty at ridiculously paltry salaries and get free passes from mainstream media (and higher education media, for that matter).

I sent reporter Gail Smith-Arrants an email message. I hope you will, as well. Our colleagues who teach for $1,333 per semester at RCCC deserve some press, as well.

Posted By Part-Time T. at 8:00 AM

Comments

Add comment

March 4th 2008

FACE Goes Two For Two

I have been writing about FACE for the past few weeks. I have been thinking about FACE since I first heard that American Federation of Teachers officials were considering a national legislative effort to boost the number of full-time college faculty. Faculty and College Excellence: FACE. I just read the March 4th FACE Talk blog posting posted by Professor Phil Ray Jack, on behalf of AFT about the $500,000 worth of funding for FACE recently included in the most recent Washington state Senate's version of the state budget. Can't say I am surprised by the fact that both the Washington State House and Senate refused to include the AFT's model bill language that called for "priority consideration" and "job security" for part-time faculty. In short, there remains nothing to benefit part-time faculty in the current version of the bill, and the $500,000 included in the Senate's version of the budget “provided solely to convert classes taught by faculty employed in part-time positions to classes taught by faculty employed in full-time positions. Particular emphasis shall be placed upon increasing the number of full-time faculty . . . .”

Professor Jack writes, "Providing full-time opportunities for part-time faculty is one of the fundamental principles of FACE, and getting funding without the language is a serious blow."

Indeed it is. However, it shouldn't have come as a surprise to either the 4,500 part-time faculty represented by the AFT/WFT in Washington, or any of you reading this.

The same thing happened in New York, where AFT's FACE effort landed $20 million dollars for the creation of 2000 full-time faculty positions, and all of the language concerning job security and priority hiring for part-time faculty to fill those positions was stripped out. In New York, 8000 part-timers represented by AFT (UUP) got nothing. No money. No "priority consideration" in being hired for newly created positions, no job security. In essence, AFT and their state affiliates gambled with the dues money of part-time faculty in pursuing a seriously flawed legislative agenda. Union officials in Washington State and New York repeatedly asked thousands of part-time faculty to trust that FACE legislation would provide them with "job security" and "priority consideration" for full-time jobs created.

AFT leaders in California, Connecticut, Florida, New Jersey, New Mexico, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont and West Virginia have introduced similar FACE legislation in these states, as well. To read about the bills introduced, click here.Thus far, the AFT's FACE legislative initiative has left thousands of part-time faculty high and dry.

That is a serious blow.

What's next? Professor Jack writes, "Providing full-time opportunities for part-time faculty is one of the fundamental principles of FACE, and getting funding without the language is a serious blow. However, there is a little more good news. It seems that we do have some legislators who seem to recognize this fact. Senator Margarita Prentice, who serves as chair of the Ways and Means Committee, said, 'This is an important issue, and next year we need to do this right.'" Professor Jack also writes, "We will also need to make sure that our local leaders understand that we intend that the new positions go to part-time faculty and use collective bargaining to rectify the problem."

"This is an important issue?" Is the senator referring to FACE in general, or the exclusion of the language in support of part-time faculty? Collective bargaining? First of all, this assumes contracts come up for bargaining before the $500,000 is dispersed. It also assumes a lot of the WFT. If, in decades of representation, the organization has not won "priority consideration" and "job security" for the thousands of part-time faculty whom they represent, why should we believe the WFT, and its various state locals, will magically do so because now they "should?" Interestingly, there was a bill introduced this past year to guarantee job security to Washington State's part-time faculty, and WFT officials did not support or lobby for it because, evidently, the legislation did not originate within the WFT.

FACE in Washington State is more than a serious blow to the state's part-time faculty, it's a disaster for the WFT-represented part-time faculty. Frankly, it's no great victory for the WFT, either. If, in New York, $20 million will hire 2000 faculty, $500,000 dollars, presuming the WFT gets the money (the allocation does not appear in the House's version of the budget, just the Senate's), will hire just a handful of new faculty. The amount of money involved is almost symbolic, a placeholder half a million dollars they hope, I imagine, will be increased in the next budget.

The 50,000 part-time faculty who belong to AFT should urge AFT leaders to rethink FACE and quickly, if part-time faculty represented by the group are to benefit at all from the legislative effort. New York and Washington State have provided clear answers to what AFT's part-time faculty members may expect to gain from FACE: not a damn thing. That's not a serious blow. That is criminal.

Posted By Part-Time T. at 2:12 PM

Comments

Add comment

March 3rd 2008

The Golden Shoe "Foot in Mouth" Award

Let me award the President of Buffalo State College (SUNY) with the Golden Shoe "Foot in Mouth" Award.

On February 22nd, BSC's Prez Dr. Muriel Howard is quoted in the Buffalo News as saying: "Achieving excellence from within not only requires additional faculty; it requires the right faculty members." The article went on to say, "Buffalo State College intends to hire more full-time faculty members who can engage students inside and outside the classroom, its president said." The school currently employs 339 part-time faculty, and they make up 45 percent of the 755 member faculty. Howard wants to boost the percentage of full-time faculty teaching at the institution to 65 percent of the total.

Here's my question, when she hires those extra full-time faculty who will, without a doubt, be the "right" faculty members and engage students inside and outside the classroom, Prez Howard will still be left with hundreds of the "wrong" kind of faculty. Shall we meet one of them?

Linda A. Drajem is one of those Buffalo State College who, evidently, don't engage students inside, as well as outside of the classroom. Here's her bio. from the English Department website: http://www.buffalostate.edu/english/drajemla.xml?username=drajemla:
Linda Drajem is a veteran of 25 years teaching high school in the Buffalo Public Schools. In September of 2001 she received her Ph.D. from SUNY Buffalo in American Studies. Her research interests include issues affecting urban education, especially the cultural dissonance between largely White teachers and Black and Latino students. Her dissertation topic was Life Stories: Successful White Women Teachers of Ethnically and Racially Diverse Students. Commitment to diversity is especially important to her life pursuits. She is a Fellow of the Center for Excellence in Urban and Rural Education. In addition she serves on the board of PFLAG, Parents and Friends of Lesbians and Gays. She has just been selected to serve as head of the local AAUW’s education foundation. Committed to teaching writing, she has been a long time member of the Just Buffalo Literary Center and the WNY Writing Project. This summer she has been asked to co-present a writing workshop for returning Writing Project Fellows. Her interests include membership in women’s writing group, reading (of course), travel, and theater.

This is from Muriel Howard's online bio.:
Dr. Muriel A. Howard has served as the president of Buffalo State College since 1996. Dr. Howard’s professional and scholarly interests include educational leadership and the representation of women and minorities in the academy.

Too bad part of her educational leadership doesn't include treating all of her faculty as valued members of the community. If she employs part-time faculty whom she feels are not engaging (or not able to engage) the students enrolled at Buffalo State College both inside and outside the classroom, Howard should fire every last one of them, and hire some who do. That would be leadership. Otherwise, she should get on with hiring the full-time faculty to boost the institutions overall numbers, and treat the contributions of her part-time faculty with the respect they deserve.

Posted By Part-Time T. at 8:00 AM