Search News


Browse Archives

News

Alternative Approach for Adjuncts

April 18, 2007

Share This Story

FREE Daily News Alerts

Advertisement

Robert Zemsky is, as he himself puts it, "one hell of a dinosaur throwback." He attended one college, went right to grad school, got a Ph.D. and spent a lifetime working for one and only one university. Forty years later, professors like Zemsky -- full time, tenured -- are on their way to extinction, making up only 30 percent of all college instructors.

Like many of the faculty members, union organizers and others who attended the annual meeting of the National Center for the Study of Collective Bargaining in Higher Education and the Professions, held at City University of New York's Baruch College this week, Zemsky, an education professor at the University of Pennsylvania who is widely recognized as one of the country's best thinkers about higher education, doesn't like that trend line. While academic unions are increasingly trying to rally part-time instructors to organize, partly for better part-time benefits but almost always with the goal of restoring more full-time faculty lines -- seeking a "revolution," as Zemsky termed it in the keynote speech he gave Tuesday -- that horse has left the barn, he argued.

"Our world has been made more contingent by the simple economics of our business," said Zemsky, who noted that adjunct issues -- hell, faculty issues generally -- got little or no attention from the Secretary of Education's Commission on the Future of Higher Education, of which he was a member. The academic research enterprise has been built for decades on the backs of postdoctoral researchers, many of whom get burnt out as they accumulate two or even three appointments without gaining a permanent job. In search of potential cash machines, he argued, colleges and universities have turned with growing frequency to postbacclaureaute certificate and master's degree programs in high-demand fields, which are typically staffed with adjuncts with specialized knowledge who can be dropped when demand shifts to the next big thing.

And is it at all surprising that a student body that itself is increasingly transient, filled with students who might change institutions three or four times, doesn't seem to get too worked up that the professors, too, are "swirling" from one institution to another? "When you've got contingent students, the notion that 'I was Professor Zemsky's student' loses some of its reality," he said.

Given those realities, Zemsky argued, "how can [we] expect a singular, older labor model to work?" Rather than trying to turn back the clock, which is an unwinnable proposition, he suggested, "the slogan in the world we're talking about ought not to be a call to organize -- it ought to be a call to incorporate."

Incorporate? Adjuncts? You could almost read those words in the quizzical looks on the faces of the audience members.

The contingent academic work force "has real skills and fulfills real needs," Zemsky explained, particularly in high-demand fields such as foreign languages, math,  and science for non-scientists. Instead of organizing one employer at a time, he said, what would happen if groups of adjunct instructors formed a cooperative in which they marketed and sold their services to all institutions in a city or area (instructors of Chinese and Russian in Chicago, say, or math instructors in the Bay Area). "I'm amazed that there hasn't been this sort of market impulse to take advantage of the phenomenon that actually benefits those who provide the services," he argued.

Zemsky acknowledged that he didn't know exactly how such an arrangement would work, mechanically, or even if it would work; "I'm just a guy who makes the speeches," he said self-deprecatingly. But given that we now have the "worst of all worlds," where the number of adjuncts is growing and they feel "unloved" and "disposable," doesn't it make sense to be "thinking of alternate ways of making this system work?" he asked the assembled.

The labor leaders and others in the crowd seemed not quite sure what to make of Zemsky's idea. One -- responding to a suggestion Zemsky made at one point that perhaps colleges themselves could create such cooperatives, to help them respond better to their collective, shifting curricular needs -- said she didn't think instructors could trust administrators "not to look just at the bottom line." She envisioned a "union hiring hall" approach like that used in craft unions, "where we negotiate with administrators who pay to ensure that we get the benefits we really need."

As he was running out the door at the end of the speech, Zemsky said, he was approached by one adjunct instructor who said he was two years away from retirement. The instructor said he had an idea for making the cooperative approach work, Zemsky said with a smile.

See all postings »
Advertisement
Advertisement

Matching Jobs

Comments on Alternative Approach for Adjuncts

  • Retirement is a myth...
  • Posted by Edward Winslow , A "tired" retired business professor on April 18, 2007 at 9:50am EDT
  • From one old curmugeon to another, Zemsky is heading in the right direction. This nation invented "retirement" in 1933 to provide so-called "social security". The result today is Aged Warehouses, mental depression, and feelings of uselessness, not to mention on one of the largest AIDS outbreaks in the US in Florida among the so-called inactive old folks. Retirement is a myth.

    Tapping the societal contributions of this group and others capable of continuing or wanting the freedom to teach as adjuncts (A demeaning term in and of itself in higer education) through a new and more modern form organization to foster and improve higher education is an interesting idea. What's wrong with Universities contracting with employment organizations of qualified instructors? Why not relieve overburdened HE Administrators of managing an HR staff? Incorporating an organization of instructors for a burgeoning population of young people would allow educational institutions to focus on Mission and bring in or remove those who don't fit the mission without damaging or destroying the career of a uniquely qualified facilitator of a student's learning process...

    Keep the thoughts going...

  • More adjuncts--not fewer
  • Posted by H. E. Baber on April 18, 2007 at 10:41am EDT
  • Having adjunct positions means having more positions in Academia, even if they aren't as secure or well-paid as one might hope. It means that more people get to pursue their vocations--to teach and do research in their fields, and that people who are prepared to make the trade-off, to accept part-time work or free-way flying in order to teach, do research and stay in Academic rather than get jobs outside where they can't do that, have an option.

    There isn't enough money to make all academic jobs full-time tenure-track with "professional-level" salaries. Fewer adjunct positions means that fewer people have the chance, at any cost, to be academics. This would be especially bad in humanities disciplines like mine where there aren't many attractive options besides academic work. Try getting a job in the outside world with a philosophy degree. So sorry, I'd much rather be an adjunct than a secretary or cab driver.

    Adjuncts should certainly be "incorporated." They should be recognized as full members of the departments in which they teach, participate in department meetings, get travel money to present papers at conferences and all that good stuff even if don't get benefits or high salaries. Participation is free and most of these benefits are cheap compared to opening up more tenure-track lines for a lucky few.

    Pursuing one's vocation to teach and do research in a field is a sacrifice--it's trading off material benefits for job satisfaction--and having lots of adjunct positions means that more dedicated people have the option to make that trade-off.

  • Posted by Rick Propas , Instructor of History at San Jose State University on April 18, 2007 at 12:25pm EDT
  • With all due respect, I think Zemsky's wrong. I am a career long adjunct and have worked in a wide variety of situations from the horrible to my present position which is about as good as it gets for adjuncts.

    What's the secret? Part of it is respectful tenure-line colleagues, but the real answer, I think, is a strong, militant union.

    In our recent high-profile labor negotiations in the California State University system, our union, the CFA, resisted any and all attempts to drive wedges between tenure track and adjunct.

    The result was increased unity and morale and and a better contract.

    I agree that large numbers of adjuncts are a fact of life for the foreseeable future, but the answer to making that system work for students and faculty is union solidarity.

  • Posted by James on April 18, 2007 at 2:55pm EDT
  • I understand in principle that unionizing and incorporating represent "opposites" in our political schema. In practice, however, how is "incorporating" teachers different from "unionizing" them if the fundamental organizing principle is that of collective bargaining?

  • Posted by Brooke Jacobson on April 18, 2007 at 5:46pm EDT
  • I agree with James, who notes that there is not a lot of difference between the idea of incorporating as adjunct or unionising as adjuncts since either way it involves adjuncts to come together and attempt of exert some control over their pay and terms of employment. However, there is a major disadvantage to the corporate model in our entrepreneurial culture; we would soon have competing enterprises trying to underbid one another. What fun!

  • Union or Agency?
  • Posted by lauri wiss , student on April 18, 2007 at 9:46pm EDT
  • Is it possible that if positions were contracted out, the university would not be responsible for benefits? the employee not convered by the state for pensions?

    Who is going to guarentee that salaries would go up rather than down?

    With a union, an adjunct knows the union has aan interest in seeing that increases in raises and benefits is the long term objective. The member pays the union to ensure through the voting for shop stewards that their interests are raised with the university and state.Universities would continue to be able to have a policy of diversity of views in their departments.

    An employment agency who contracts with the employers gives employees one per hour rate but charges the employer a different rate.
    The employee of the agency either works for what is offered or doesn't work. Great benefits are not guarenteed either. Increases passed by a legislature would end up as profit in the agency's pocketbook not the teacher's pocketbook.

    Would professors change employment agencies if better benefits were offered? What if the benefits are cut because the agency loses clients in a downturn?

    Each way is tough but I would sign a union card first. State Legislators know how a teacher lobby can impact an election.

  • Posted by Jack Longmate , Adjunct English Instructor at Olympic College, Bremerton, WA on April 18, 2007 at 9:46pm EDT
  • In response to our current “worst of all worlds,” Robert Zemsky encourages alternatives to unions as the avenue for reform. Organizing adjuncts is that it is very hard to do. Adjuncts don’t know each other, are not centralized, and, perhaps most significantly, don’t have much time.

    I would like to think that the unions still offer hope, assuming that they undergo a change of heart and of priority. After all, they have had a role in bargaining the emphatically substandard working conditions that contingent faculty receive in our worsening status quo.

    But there is one union model of promise: that of British Columbia. At Vancouver Community College, they have, what I believe comes very close to being the best of all possible worlds for part-time/contingent faculty. At VCC, part-time and full-time faculty are paid on the same salary schedule; if one teaches at 30 or 60 percent of full-time, one receives 30 or 60 percent of the pay. Job assignments, including non-teaching work, are made—not based on full-time or part-time status—but chiefly on instructor seniority, and a part-time faculty member may have greater seniority than a full-time one. Most remarkable is VCC’s regularization, whereby once probationary (term) instructors establish themselves as capable instructors after two years, they become automatically regularized, whereby they have job security. This contrasts so very sharply with our U.S. system, where contingent faculty are indeed "unloved” and “disposable.”

    I believe British Columbia faces the same sort of economic pressures that encouraging contingency. But I believe their union solidarity is what makes them unique: the Vancouver Community College Faculty Association, for example, has not been afraid to go on strike. And apart standing up to college administrators, in British Columbia unions would seem to have what might be conviction. To quote Cindy Oliver, president of the BC Federation of Post Secondary Educators (from http://www.fpse.ca/resources/pdfs/SpchCOCAL60812.pdf):

    “We have made these changes in our union structure and collective bargaining strategies because we believe that all post-secondary educators have equal value. It is a critical starting point for any substantial discussion about how we address the issue of contingent academic labour because our employers, of course, want to cherry-pick their way through postsecondary faculty. The employer wants to create arbitrary measures of who is important and who is not. They want to skew the compensation debate to enable their arbitrary choices. But most of all, the employer wants to pit educators against one another and use the disunity to create a post-secondary education environment that reflects their values and priorities.”

    The nice thing about this rhetoric is that it is backed up by actual equitable treatment in practice.

    Jack Longmate, Adjunct English Instructor, Olympic College, Bremerton, Washington

  • A higher ed Kelly Girl
  • Posted by Piss Poor Prof on April 19, 2007 at 4:16am EDT
  • I am coming to this discussion from a unique position: I have been both an adjunct and an IT consultant. The former gave me the small wages to push me to be the latter.

    I design, develop and deliver specialized software training for fortune whatever companies. But, since IT is ever evolving and projects are of a limited time (6-18 months from end to end), few companies bring on full-time workers. Rather, they hire out to consultants to design, configure and implement their software “solutions.” Then I come in. I am hired to take their technical documentation and turn it into trainable/teachable materials. Then I train the end-users how to use the new system. It’s not Chaucer, but it pays well.

    The “incorporation” that Zemsky calls for is actually in full operation in IT services. There are consulting companies which employ full-timers (W2’s) with benefits and retirement options that are then “placed” with the client to fulfill a need. There are other agencies who headhunt talent, taking a fee out of the bill-rate for the placement. With either model (and there are many other variations), the one with the knowledge has some measure of security and control over how their services will be compensated.

    Teaching is a service industry (more so than a mission field), and it is time to establish a compensation structure that benefits the knowledge worker.

    How would this work? For more on my answer, see me blog: www.burntoutadjunct.blogspot.com

  • Part-time--Full-Time
  • Posted by judtih mandel , Retired on April 19, 2007 at 4:02pm EDT
  • I have been discussing this very item with the Community College Association of California Teachers Aassociation/NEA since 1989. The trend towards doing away with Tenure was evident even as far back as the 1980s.
    I retired form K-12 in 1987. I began teaching at College of the Desert, Palm Desert, CA. in 1989, first as a Part-Time Instructor in the Non-Credit Division of English as a Second Language and then as a French Instructor.

    I organized the part-time faculty and became active in the Community College Association/CTA/NEA.

    My drive has always been to have the college hire more full-time instructors. Failing this endeavor, I bargained for paid office hours. My next step would have been paid health benefits. I figured that the more expensive we became, the more incentive the college would have to hire full-time faculty. Unfortunately I had to retire due to medical problems.

    The more expensive part-time faculty becomes, the more full time positions should open up.This should be in the minds of all facuty.

    Having met many part-time and full-time instructors throughout California and Canada,I am aware that most of our part-time faculty are as qualified as full-time faculty. They lack, however, the time on campus that is needed because many are traveling to other colleges or have to take ouside jobs.

    It is essential that in the community colleges we meet the needs of our students and this is why we need full-time instructors who are available. My students had my home phone number and my home email and I was available to meet with them at a mutually convenient time.

    I was fortunate to be retired and had no need to earn a living or medical coverage. I could, therefore,devote my time to my students.

    I hope that in the near future we reverse the trend of having more part-time faculty and do the right move in hiring more full-time instructors with tenure.

    I wish California Part-Time and Full-Time Faculty success in continuing the fight, our students deserve this.

  • Posted by Greg Tropea on April 19, 2007 at 8:55pm EDT
  • In presenting this half-baked incorporation idea, Prof. Zemsky does adjuncts only the service of providing a reminder of what is wrong with higher education.

    If adjuncts incorporated, the result would be an accelerated race to the bottom. Why? Because administrators (stereo)typically understand their task to graduate as many people as possible at the lowest possible cost. Given a choice of an adjunct corporation with a reputation for quality at a fair price and a cheap but adequate free agent, cheap will win.

    That doesn't happen in those service businesses where competitive advantage demands satisfaction of customers who know what they need and can compare alternatives. Consulting companies either help their clients economically enhance health and functionality or they aren't called back. Often, as we know, the cheapest service on the front end is a more expensive over the long term.

    University administrators do not have to deal with the same kind of bottom-line discipline. Indeed, they often get away with fudging full-time/part-time ratios and real-world SFRs and no one can ever check because even when spreadsheets are made available to answer questions, they are constructed precisely to defeat efficient analysis. This lack of accountability ensures that, outside of favoring public relations favorites, most administrators will be looking for the minimum level of staffing needed to keep up appearances.

    The union movement possesses proven means to improve working conditions. In states that allow organizing, that is the preferred course of action for reasons of history and relevance.

    In the backwater states that prohibit what should be a right of free people everywhere, joining the revitalized AAUP is the first step toward equity.