Advertisement

Advertisement

News, Views and Careers for All of Higher Education

March 6

Pushing for Job Conversions

In the campaign to deal with the shift of faculty positions from full-time to part-time, what counts as a victory? Better wages and benefits for adjuncts? More job security? Collective bargaining? Or the job security that comes with a tenure-track position?

Looking for a job?
See all 236 new postings
Browse all job listings:
Faculty: 2,563
Administrative: 2,156
Executive: 160
FEATURED EMPLOYERS
Post a job

Related stories

In recent years, adjuncts have won notable successes on a variety of fronts, particularly through unions — although the most notable advances have helped but a small fraction of those off the tenure track. In Washington State, a national union-backed effort may be about to achieve legislation that specifically goes after “conversion” — taking part-time jobs and turning them into full-time positions, with tenure eligibility.

The state Senate’s version of the budget provides $500,000 for such conversion efforts at the state’s community colleges. That’s not going to convert that many jobs — about 20 new full-time slots would be created. Currently the funds aren’t in the House of Representatives version of the bill, but faculty advocates are hopeful that the funds will be added.

While the amount of money is small, the step may be significant in that it would establish a state policy of shifting such positions — and provide the money (even if a small amount) to back it up. In other states, bills have mandated ratios of full- to part-timers (and frequently those laws have been ignored), or individual collective bargaining agreements have included funds for creating more full-time jobs. But the specific conversion of jobs is different — and raises tough issues.

The effort in Washington State is part of the FACE campaign (for Faculty and College Excellence) of the American Federation of Teachers. FACE’s goals are in fact dual: better treatment for those off the tenure track and a gain in the proportion of jobs that are on the tenure track. Last year, FACE’s first with programs in legislatures, it was able to have numerous hearings, and also saw some increased appropriations for pay and benefits for part-time faculty members (including those in Washington State). But if the budget legislation goes through, it would mark the first key success in conversion of jobs — a goal AFT leaders in Washington State view as crucial to converting more jobs in the years ahead.

To Phil Ray Jack, the legislation is long overdue and its significance is obvious. “Every quarter, I have students come up to me and and say ‘what are you teaching next quarter?’ and I have to say ‘I don’t know,’ ” said Jack, on an interview while he was on a bus going from a teaching assignment at one campus to one at another. (He teaches primarily at Green River Community College, where he is an AFT leader, but his “part time” teaching career involves five courses a semester, at three campuses.)

Jack said that he believes faculty leaders have shied away from talking about the impact of part-time teaching slots on the quality of education because they have not wanted to imply that adjuncts are working less hard or are less committed to students. But he said that there is an impact on students, and professors, and that this suggests the value of shifting positions. When he tells students he doesn’t know what he’ll be teaching, he said, he’s denying them “the continuous contact” that they need.

There are also problems in governance and decision making, he said. Jack recalled attending a meeting of professors on reaching students who come to college with significant deficits in their preparation. He asked the professors in the audience how many of them were part timers and he was the only one. He did a poll of those at the meeting on how much teaching of at-risk students was done by part timers on their campus, and over 80 percent was. So here was a room full of professors talking about the teaching of students they by and large didn’t teach, while those who did the teaching didn’t have the ability to be there as they were dashing from job to job, he said. “There is a real impact on students and quality,” he said.

The problem — even with only 20 new full-time jobs being created — is who will get them. The original FACE-inspired legislation in Washington State this year included not only the funds for conversion but a directive that “priority” be given to hiring current part timers for the new full-time jobs. That bill died. When the funds were restored as part of the budget bill, the “priority” designation disappeared.

So while colleges would be free to hire current part timers, they wouldn’t be required to do so. (In Washington State community colleges, the vast majority of openings for full-time positions are filled by people who have taught part time at a community college in the state, but at four-year institutions nationally, part timers regularly complain that they are passed over for positions — even to teach the classes they have offered.)

John Boesenberg, director of human resources for the Washington State Board for Community and Technical Colleges, said that the board opposed the priority designation. “We believe the best candidates should be hired in a local decision-making process,” he said. “Local decision makers are best placed to make the decisions.”

The state board welcomes the conversion funds, he said, adding that he believes that if the new jobs are created, most will end up going to people who have taught part time. “We believe legislation isn’t necessary.”

But while the AFT is pledging to try to get the priority status added next year, some part timers view the legislation as a betrayal that will lead to lost opportunities for them. Leaders of the Washington Part-Time Faculty Association have in fact been campaigning against the FACE legislation, which they view as a bill the favors full-time interests over theirs.

Doug Collins, who teaches English as a second language at South Seattle Community College, said that the fight over the priority status misses a larger problem. “We have nothing to gain from this — only something to lose from this,” he said, because the new full-time jobs will replace anywhere from one to three part-time assignments. “There’s no way you create a full-time slot unless you are laying off a part timer.”

Because full-time instructors have precedence over part timers in course selection and scheduling, adjuncts who keep their jobs will also see their situations worsen, he said. “A real solution wouldn’t put us in competition with one another,” Collins added.

As to the argument that some dramatic change is needed to create more of a full-time faculty, Collins said that many adjuncts — himself included — don’t want a full-time job, and so shouldn’t have their interests dictated by a union with tenured professors. “This is all misleading,” he said, because legislators who want to help adjuncts will think they have done so.

Sandra Schroeder, president of the Washington Federation of Teachers and an English professor at Seattle Central Community College, is mystified by the criticism — and defends her union’s efforts. She noted that because of efforts prior to this year, part-time instructors currently are paid on average about 60 percent of what a full timer would earn per course at a community college. While that’s a large gap, it’s better than the 50 percent of a year ago, and the gap has been shrinking.

Schroeder vowed to continue to push on closing the gap, but also said that when about half of community college classes are taught by people off the tenure track, there are staffing issues that need to change. “We’re trying to make progress in both areas,” she said.

“We need more people with tenure,” she said, and many of those who could earn it if more jobs are converted are current part timers. “There is a pool of highly experienced, well qualified people, and when some of them get these jobs, there will be more full timers fighting for part timers.”

— Scott Jaschik

Got something to say?


Want it on paper? Print this page.
Know someone who’d be interested? Forward this story.
Want to stay informed? Sign up for free daily news e-mail.

Advertisement

Comments

AFT Washington’s Campaign

You can also read more about AFT Washington’s efforts, which Phil Jack has been documenting on the FACE Talk blog here:

http://aftblog.blogs.com/face/face_updates/index.html

Craig Smith, at 8:40 am EST on March 6, 2008

FACE

What happened in Washington State should come as no surprise. That part-time faculty oppose FACE should come as no surprise. That the AFT is spending millions of dollars in dues on a legislative agenda which will benefit only the full-time faculty whom the organization represents should come as no surprise.

In New York, UUP (New York AFT) got FACE funding to the tune of $20 million dollars, and the “priority hiring” and “job security” clauses were both stripped out of the final legislation. It’s no wonder, the then-president of the UUP sat on the New York State Commission that concluded the state’s part-time faculty were the biggest threat to higher education in the state. He labeled his own dues paying members THE threat to higher education.

“Priority hiring” and “job security” are the only two benefits for part-time faculty in the model FACE legislation, which state AFT officials are urged to use in their drives to land funding for more full-time faculty positions. However, in New York, 8000 part-time faculty represented by UUP (AFT) got nothing from FACE. No money. No priority hiring. No job security. And not even an apology from their union leaders for failing them dismally.

Why would it have been different in Washington State? Why will it be different in any of the other 9 states where AFT leaders have worked with legislators to introduce FACE legislation? It won’t. Part-time faculty were conned into believing FACE would better our working conditions. That’s our fault for being naive, and not vociferously questioning the national, state and local AFT leaders who assured us that “priority hiring” and “job security” were possible to achieve, along with more money for full-time faculty positions.

When AFT officials began discussing FACE two years ago, part-time faculty activists brought up the same objections that AFT officials are “shocked and dismayed” to hear today. Their answer now is that something is better than nothing. Oh, really? This is Sandra Schroeder’s answer. She says that earning 60 percent of what a full-timer earns per course is better than 50 percent. It’s oppression rhetoric. At the rate the gains are being negotiated by her organization, it will be 2038 before part-timers in Washington State earn 100 percent of the per course pay of their full-time colleagues.

Those same part-time faculty will NEVER achieve parity, because Ms. Schroeder’s WFT has never closed the overall pay gap. Her group refuses to negotiate COLA raises which translate to more dollars for part-time faculty members. AFT local leaders negotiate equal percentage COLA gains and call it equality. It’s just that 2.5 percent of $60,000 is thirty times more MONEY than 2.5 percent of $2,000. So every time, WFT or any other union negotiates equal percentage raises, the group is negotiating exponentially larger raises for the full-time faculty. Thanks but no thanks. I may not teach math, but I can work a calculator.

Finally, AFT officials will tell you that in Washington State the part-time faculty get $11 million in equity pay. Sounds great, yes? Depends. Like in California, money earmarked by legislators for part-time faculty equity pay is diverted to full-time faculty who are conveniently classified as “part-time,” when they teach overload courses, in their union contracts. It’s another way CFT and WFT union leaders have found to increase the pay of full-timers.

Am I surprised FACE has, thus far, left thousands and thousands of dues paying AFT part-time faculty members high and dry? Not at all. I hope more part-time faculty like Mr. Collins will come forward and publicly oppose FACE. Maybe then AFT leaders will get the message that the part-time faculty whom they are supposed to represent are starting to demand equal representation. Maybe, then, true pay equity will follow.

Sam Rosenthal, at 10:30 am EST on March 6, 2008

FACE

This is another blog where FACE is discussed, although will a slightly less AFT partisan focus. http://www.AdjunctNation.com/blog/2

It’s the Part-Time Thoughts blog.

John F. Davies, at 11:00 am EST on March 6, 2008

The best overall solution to this problem is to pay the same amount per section, whether someone is called full-time or part-time. The student expectations and the expectations of the college vis-a-vis the sections of part-timers and full-timers are already the same, anyway.

Doing this would eliminate the incentive to keep as many people part-time as possible, which has driven the expansion of the part-timer professoriate (and the growth of administrative salaries) for the past three decades. Phil Ray Jack could perhaps then teach one more course at the campus where he’s teaching three, have a full-time schedule there so he doesn’t have to spend hours commuting between campuses, and quite likely soon be designated full-time as well, as accreditation-wise it would look better to have one more full-timer and the additional cost wouldn’t be especially high. He’d probably give up the extra sections on two other campuses, then, and persons at them currently teaching three courses could pick up their additional courses to become full-time, as well.

The situation of part-timers teaching more than full-time, but split between multiple campuses, is relatively widespread, so fewer part-timers would lose positions to create full-timers than it might appear at first glance.

Thane Doss, at 11:15 am EST on March 6, 2008

FACE in Washington State

We’re grateful to Mr. Jaschik for highlighting our efforts to address the academic staffing crisis in our state. This year we focused on two-year colleges, where the staffing ratios are most acute, but we are also working with four-year colleagues to unlock a solution to their staffing issues. Last year under the FACE banner we worked on equity issues for both groups and, as the article touches on, won greater salary increases, including part-time equity raises, than had been given in over a decade. We attribute our success both last year and this (if the conversion money stays in the final budget) to the increased activism of part-time and full-time faculty. Yes, a tiny but vocal group opposes our efforts but the vast majority of the AFT faculty in our state, part-time and full-time, support FACE.

Those concerned about FACE seem to worry that people in part-time positions will be laid off. Our state board recently did a study showing there is a very high turnover rate among part-time faculty in the two-year system. The bill that died specifically required that part-timers not be laid off but that the conversions happen through attrition. We will continue to push for that if the money is distributed to the colleges. In our state, there is plenty of room for conversions without impacting senior part-time faculty, and as the article said, the vast majority—over 80%—of the positions that do open go to faculty who are currently holding part-time positions in the state. So in our state, creating job conversions is a part-time issue since our members who hold part-time positions will benefit, either by getting those new positions themselves or by having colleagues who do.

Though we lost the bill that required specific provisions on how the money would be used, we have not lost the battle for fairness and equity that we have waged for over ten years because of one partial setback. Next year we will be back again, trying to make another step forward. Making these changes is a long-term struggle, not only at the legislature but at the bargaining table. This year alone AFT Washington staff and volunteers gave thousands of hours on an effort that may yield only a small, though important, advance. There is no magic wand; there is no easy solution. There is only the continuous committed work of those who have decided to make a difference and the increments of change they bring.

But whatever we do and however we do it, the students benefit most, as Phil Jack’s comments showed.

Sandra Schroeder, President at AFT Washington, at 1:00 pm EST on March 6, 2008

Conversion to FT hurts adjuncts

As one assured by my union president that normal attrition would be job security enough for part-time faculty in the process of conversion to tenure lines — and as one who then lost a part-time job of over a decade to newly hired tenure-line faculty and their trailing spouses — I have absolutely no faith in FACE. If the group of vocal part-time faculty who oppose it seem “tiny,” it’s for the same reasons that have allowed their employers to exploit them for three decades: they’re overworked and scared for their jobs. Workers in that position look to unions for help, not for more of the same kind of distant calculations, token gestures, and specious reasoning they’ve been getting from management.

Steve Street, Lecturer at SUNY, at 2:30 pm EST on March 6, 2008

six to one. . .

My adjunct teaching load would translate into two full-time jobs at the four-year school where I teach, but only 125% of one at the community college. Either way, I’d be miles ahead in pay. My students would really be my students, as they would each command a greater share of my attention. I would also have, finally, the time to crank out some serious research, such as might get me hired full-time in the first place.

But if the four-year school were to convert my job to full time, I have no reason to assume that I would get the post over some kid right out of grad school.

I’m not persuaded that union attempts at addressing this mess by forcing consolidation are necessarily hypocritical, as some claim. It’s just that the situation itself is intractable. The move to part-timers isn’t merely an effect of available cheap labor; the money squeeze is real, a political fact. And a further stubborn fact is that some (though not I) prefer to teach part-time.

So I agree that the only sane solution would be to require schools receiving state or federal aid (e.g. all of them) to pay everybody roughly the same per credit hour of teaching, while allowing raises for length of service, special deals for true academic stardom—whatever makes it work out in the end. I won’t hold my breath while waiting for that to be enacted, though.

Jim Pangborn, at 5:45 pm EST on March 6, 2008

Misplaced Blame

Until the teachers’ unions got involved, non-tenure track faculty at 4-year schools saw no COLAs. Afterall, colleges have the legal right to decide who will get COLAs and they decided not to pass it on to the non tenure track. Similarly, the sad fact of our working life is that non tenure track faculty can be fired at any time for any reason by the college and the unions can’t do a thing about it because we are on contingent contracts. AFT did not create this problem.

FACE is a step toward controlling the increased use of such contracts, something the colleges should have done on their own. AFT will continue to work towards fairness despite setbacks, but institutions of higher education need to take responsibility for the situation and start moving their adjunct faculty to regular contracts. The colleges do the hiring and the firing, not the unions. The solution is in the hands of our colleges and universities.

Lila Harper, at 7:45 pm EST on March 6, 2008

Students?

Most of these comments neglect to even touch upon the needs of the students. Yes, the state of Washington should be looking out for the best interests of its employees. But its paramount duty in this matter is to provide the best education for the hundreds of thousands of students in all of its community colleges.

As a part-timer, I support any conversion of part-time jobs to full-time jobs. From what I understand, the hiring process is generally more competitive. Full-time instructors have the time (and are paid to) contribute more to the campus community. They can more easily form relationships with students and other members of the campus. They have the longevity and job security to do things like develop programs, apply for grants, and evaluate the long-term effectiveness of their efforts.

I don’t know how many jobs would be created/destroyed by job conversions. I would be very sad if I lost my part-time job and couldn’t get a full-time job to replace it. I would end up switching careers. However, the state’s priority shouldn’t be to ensure that I have a job. It should be to ensure that our students — many of whom are changing careers themselves — receive the best education possible.

Christopher Quarles, Adjunct CC Instructor in WA, at 7:45 pm EST on March 6, 2008

Advertisement

 Jobs Related to Pushing for Job Conversions

or search for jobs directly.

Human Resources Assistant II
New York University

New York University’s School of Law is seeking a Human Resources Assistant II to perform a wide range of clerical, ... see job

Assistant to the Vice President for Human Resource Management and Labor Relations
Fashion Institute of Technology

FIT—Where Creativity Gets Down to Business! see job

Staff Development Specialists Needed — 4 Positions Open!
University of Montana

Program Description Montana’s Child Welfare Training Partnership (MCWTP) is a collaboration between the Montana ... see job

Director of Leadership Development
Elon University

Elon University is a dynamic, private comprehensive institution known for excellent arts and sciences along with outstanding ... see job

Vice President Human Resources
Masdar Institute of Science and Technology

The Masdar Institute of Science and Technology, dedicated to premier engineering research and the provision of a definitive, ... see job

Candidate Development Specialist Manager
Yale University

General Purpose
As a key member of the Staffing and Career Development leadership team, oversee the candidate ... see job

Program Manager, Workforce Development
Lone Star College System

Located just north of Houston, Texas, our five campuses serve 1,400 square miles. Our student enrollment is nearly 50,000 in ... see job

Manager of Employment
Roger Williams University

Roger Williams University is one of the top ranked liberal arts universities in the Northeast and is an Equal Opportunity ... see job

Assistant Dean of Human Resources
University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill

This is a full-time EPA non-faculty position that will provide the School with senior level leadership and management of all ... see job

Employee Benefits Specialist 0000499
Los Rios Community College District

For more information and application please visit our website http://www.losrios.edu and ... see job