Search News


Browse Archives

News

Adjunct Solidarity

March 24, 2009

Share This Story

FREE Daily News Alerts

Advertisement

Utah's Weber State University is not a hotbed of adjunct activism. There is no union. Adjuncts don't belong to the Faculty Senate; the national organizations that work with those off the tenure track had a tough time coming up with members at the university. That's not because adjuncts aren't important at Weber State. In fact, they teach about one third of its classes.

Given that Weber State isn't known for its activist professors, administrators there were surprised recently when letters and e-mail messages started to arrive -- not from adjuncts or their tenure-track colleagues at the university, but from New York, California and elsewhere -- as far away as Japan. The letters were protesting the decision by Weber State to deal with a budget crunch in part by cutting the base pay for adjuncts by 7 percent.

Nationwide this year, adjuncts are being told that they won't have courses next semester, or that they will have fewer courses, or that everything is up in the air until enrollments and budgets are clear. But those who are teaching are not generally told that their pay per course -- already less than that of those on the tenure track -- is being cut. And the Weber State plan struck many adjunct activists at other campuses as salt in the wounds -- enough so that they needed to let the university know that someone was watching.

The Coalition for Contingent Academic Labor organized the letter writing to the university's senior officials, and distributed a sample that said, of adjuncts at Weber State: "Their lack of benefits and low salaries, made worse by being singled out for this pay cut to their entire salary, are an indication of the lack of respect you have not just for this group of faculty, but for the work of the profession, and the mission of the university."

John Hess, who was one of the organizers of the e-mail campaign and who taught for many years at San Francisco State University, said that with the pay cuts, Weber State seemed like it was "adding insult to injury," and that fellow adjuncts on various e-mail lists shared his reaction and wanted to do something to protest.

Mary Ellen Goodwin, who teaches at De Anza College and sent a letter, said she felt the need to say something because Weber State's adjuncts have no union or other protections. "What makes this so insulting is that the lowest paid people are getting cut."

The specific cut at Weber State brings a typical three-credit course down from $2,919 to $2,700 in pay for the adjunct.

Weber State officials said that it was unfair to imply that adjuncts are the only ones affected by the pay cut. While it is true that pay for tenure-track or tenured faculty members is not being cut, the same system is used for adjunct pay and "overload" pay -- extra funds that full timers receive when they teach a course on top of their regular assignments. In addition, John Kowalewski, a spokesman for the university, said that full-time faculty members will have to pay more next year for health insurance than they did this year -- even while not receiving raises. (The adjuncts at the university receive no health insurance benefits.)

Kowalewski said that, in total, the university needs to close a $6.5 million gap in the budget for the fiscal year starting July 1. Reducing the base pay for adjuncts and overload courses will produce $1.2 million in savings. (The university is facing a 17 percent cut in state support, although some of that is being made up in one-time funds.)

The university has been experiencing growth of late, enrolling a record 21,000 students last fall and anticipating a further increase this coming fall. Given the enrollment growth, Kowalewski said, the university has made a commitment not to reduce the number of sections offered, and thus does not want to eliminate adjunct jobs. So cutting their pay, while not desirable, was a logical option, he said. "We're mindful that these aren't easy decisions to pass along, but a large part of this is to minimize the number of lost jobs."

Hess said that, without access to Weber State's entire budget, he can't directly challenge the notion that only a pay cut for adjuncts would avoid layoffs. But he said it was "outrageous" to cut adjunct pay, and that the letter-writing campaign is part of an effort to let colleges know that people are watching the decisions they make about adjuncts. "There must be a better way than to take from people who don't have very much," he said.

At Weber State, faculty members have not been up in arms about the issue. David Ferro, chair of the Faculty Senate, said that body does not have adjunct members and has not taken a stand on the pay cuts. Asked whether the pay cuts made sense, he said that "it depends on your perspective." He said that there is a wide belief that adjuncts need more money, but that there is a legitimate consideration of "keeping as many people as possible employed vs. laying them off entirely."

Several adjuncts at Weber State declined to discuss the situation. They noted that with assignments unclear for next semester, they do not feel secure enough to talk. One who agreed to be quoted -- without her name -- has taught two or three courses a semester for several years, and at present has been offered only one course for the fall.

She said that she has discussed the issue with some tenured colleagues, who pointed out to her that their health insurance costs are going up. Because of changes in her husband's job, this adjunct is about to lose the health insurance on which her family relies. And losing some of her pay adds to the difficulty.

"It's going to be difficult, and when you don't have insurance, the loss of pay is a double whammy," she said. While this adjunct acknowledged that the university's budget crisis is real, and requires significant cuts, "when they start their cuts with the faculty with the least unified voice, and with the least money, that's not as honorable as it could be."

The salt in this adjunct's wounds? "Nobody actually came and told us about this," she said. "We found out about the pay cuts in the newspaper."

See all postings »
Advertisement
Advertisement

Matching Jobs

Comments on Adjunct Solidarity

  • Where have we heard this before?
  • Posted by Steve Aird on March 24, 2009 at 6:45am EDT
  • The failure to have an open discussion about meeting budget shortfalls is typical of the "leadership" at too many of our academic institutions. Many of those at the top have no interest in the welfare of their students or faculty, or the institutions. It is all about maintaining inflated salaries, in many cases, for minimal work. Academic administrators have become increasingly like their corporate counterparts, with similar results. But the fault is also that of the faculty and of the public, for tolerating such abuses. If cutbacks are required, then those receiving the most should be the first to bear them. That is real leadership. Don't look for it anytime soon in academia, in corporate America, or in the U.S. Congress.

  • Thanks
  • Posted by Steve , Lecturer/College Writing Program at Buffalo State University on March 24, 2009 at 8:00am EDT
  • Thanks to IHE for breaking and keeping on top of this story. As the commenter above notes, Weber State's just an extreme example off the way of the world, whether the world is academic or corporate --- but such operations thrive on darkness, and if anything can halt such practices, it's the light of publicity like this can.

  • Posted by Subterraneanne on March 24, 2009 at 9:00am EDT
  • Of course, this is outrageous. However, I'd like to point out that adjuncts in the State University System of Georgia actually make as little as $1,600 to teach a freshman comp class, which everyone knows is a labor-intensive affair. Not only is it unprofessional to single out adjuncts for a pay cut, the immigrant labor of higher ed, but the pay is already an insult.

  • Dime a dozen
  • Posted by IHE Reader on March 24, 2009 at 9:30am EDT
  • If there weren't a glut of academics on the market to fill adjunct slots, then adjunct salaries would be higher. Those academics who can't get tenure-track jobs and who become sick of low paying adjunct positions can find work elsewhere. Maybe they'll even be payed what they are worth.

  • Adjunct Faculty & Age Discrimination
  • Posted by Ethan S. Burger on March 24, 2009 at 9:30am EDT
  • Greetings:

    Adjunct faculty often bring to institutions of higher education important areas of knowledge and skills not available to students from the full-time faculty (many of whom have never worked outside an academic environment -- and frequently their students suffer for this). Some institutions make good use of their adjunct faculty, but this is primarily in urban areas where the supply of qualified adjunct faculty is high and they can live off their "real" jobs at a reasonable standard of living.

    Adjunct faculty is cheap and in most cases are employees "at will" without any job protections or benefits. Much has been written about the astronomical rise of the cost of higher education. In 1977-78, tuition, room and board came to about $7,500 for private colleges/universities and approximately $2,000 for public institution. Where does all this money go?

    The use of adjunct faculty is a bit like outsourcing. Unfortunately, quality control of adjunct faculty is uneven. Of course, the use of adjunct faculty represents yet another way in which institutions of higher education engage in illegal age discrimination in the hiring, promotion and retirement of individuals in violation of the federal Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) and various state statutes which make individuals above age 40 a protected class. Cases in other industries are increasingly being filed.

    Unfortunately, most adjunct professors are afraid to challenge the system since they fear it will make them "radioactive" should they seek full-time positions. Most of these adjuncts are probably operating under a false assumption since at many institutions of higher learning, it is the rare case when adjunct faculty get hired as full-time faculty ANYWHERE. The current economic situation makes most institutions understandably reluctant to add any faculty -- but this is a relatively recent phenomenon.

    While there are lots of qualified potential faculty out there who are being "exploited," ultimately it is the students (and their parents) who pay the price in the near-term, and given the current financial crisis, the country will suffer in the long-term when we have a shortage of biologists, chemists, doctors, engineers, nurses, etc.

  • adjunct pay cut
  • Posted by adjunct in NJ on March 24, 2009 at 9:45am EDT
  • Would a review of the proposed budget cuts include any loss of perks or benefits or salaries for the administrative personnel? I doubt it. In a family, when bad times come, everyone suffers equally.

    Not, apparently, at this institution.

  • Adjunct
  • Posted by Abused adjunct on March 24, 2009 at 10:45am EDT
  • IHE Reader: You are a child. 'go elsewhere?' what with the kids, the wife, just go where the work is? Ridiculous.

  • Not so fast...
  • Posted on March 24, 2009 at 11:15am EDT
  • Almost without exception, when I speak with my friends who do adjunct teaching, their ire, to the extent that it rises to ire, is directed not at the evil administrators, but at their tenure-track colleagues, who show no inclination to share the wealth at salary time, refuse to stand in solidarity with regard to the salary pool, pawn off the worst teaching assignments on them, and often treat them as second-class citizens. Administrators at least are up front about their desire to get the cheapest possible workforce. But tenure-track faculty who come out of the woodwork with cries of injustice at times like this will find that their cries ring just a trifle hollow.

  • Abused adjunct
  • Posted by IHE Reader on March 24, 2009 at 12:15pm EDT
  • Everyone has tough choices to make. Adults seek to solve their own problems. Children complain and want others to solve their problems for them, which is what "abused" adjuncts do. The system of higher education clearly doesn't value adjuncts, yet relies on them quite heavily to function. Other industries work this way too (e.g., fast food and retail). A big reason such industries can pay low wages and salaries is due to the oversupply of workers. Screaming "don't cut my pay" isn't going to solve the problem of oversupply.

  • Posted by TDoss on March 24, 2009 at 12:30pm EDT
  • IHE reader--you probably have an image in your mind of forty years ago or so, when most courses on most campuses were taught by tenure-track faculty. You need to replace that with an image of what colleges are really like today--with the majority of courses taught by non-tenure track faculty, many of whom teach at two, three or more campuses, and with the tenure-track faculty appointed in the '60s being replaced by adjuncts when they retire now. There are also three or four times as many administrators on campuses now, and instead of presidents, vice-presidents, chancellors, provosts, etc. earning maybe 1.5 times what the top-earning faculty earn, they earn several times what the top-earning faculty earn. They also spend a lot on media to distort the image you have of universities. If the adjuncts teaching substantially more than tenure-track faculty teach were reclassified as "full-time" at one campus apiece, the "glut" you believe exists would vanish in many fields and be substantially reduced in the rest.

    Of course, if you think the ideal college education is one that's primarily taught by persons with no job security, traveling from campus to campus to make ends meet, with no office to meet students in and little time for research after the planning, traveling, paper-marking, etc., are done, then I guess you should be happy with what college education has become.

  • The cynicism of some people ...
  • Posted by Another Adjunct on March 24, 2009 at 12:30pm EDT
  • I am so tired of the "if you don't like the conditions, go work somewhere else" argument. It is cynical and short-sighted. What happened to caring about the working conditions of the people who are educating today's college students?

    Just because someone can tolerate bad conditions is no guarantee that he or she is a good teacher. The adjuncts who are good teachers stick it out because they are either lucky enough to have other secure sources of income or because they are dedicated but fearful of reprisal if they agitate for change since they have no protections. We should care about creating conditions for all faculty that will make it possible for ANY good teacher to fulfill his or her potential and thus serve the students more effectively. If someone is a good teacher, then he or she shouldn't have to be independently wealthy to be able to teach.

    We need to start rallying parents, who would be shocked to learn about this situation. Imagine going to a hospital and discovering that all the triage personnel are working for substandard pay, dealing with crowded ERs and are distracted by their worrries about their own finances and lack of health insurance. Imagine that the doctors in the hospital are so overburdened with administrative duties that they can't focus on their patients. That's basically higher ed today. Anyone ever think about the cost of this practice to society as a whole?

  • visibility & voice
  • Posted by Vanessa on March 24, 2009 at 12:30pm EDT
  • Ultimately, the Weber letter writing campaign - credit to John Hess, Coalition for Contingent Academic Labor (COCAL) and their adjunct mailing list (adj-l) - is about so much more than Weber U. The effort shows that adjuncts collaborating can make their voice heard and themselves less invisible. (Remember the Invisible Adjunct?) Curse the darkness and light thousands of candles...

  • PS - adj-l address
  • Posted by Vanessa on March 24, 2009 at 12:30pm EDT
  • In case you want to join the fun, write more letters with us... http://adj-l.org/mailman/listinfo/adj-l_adj-l.org

  • Two-Track System Creates Caste System
  • Posted by Keith Hoeller on March 24, 2009 at 1:15pm EDT
  • The division between the tenure and non-tenure-track faculty has created an apartheid-like caste system on our nation's campuses. The minority of full-time, tenure stream faculty, protected by lifetime tenure, now rules over the majority of adjunct faculty, who have no job protection whatsoever.

    While Weber State has proposed cutting adjunct pay, while leaving tenured faculty pay intact, it has already cut classes for many adjuncts. Around the country we are seeing the adjunct faculty massacre of 2009.

    It is always difficult to organize poor workers, who fear for the loss of their jobs. But in academe the hazards of becoming an adjunct activist are increased by the scarcity of tenure-track jobs and the hazards of confronting the tenure-stream faculty who often serve as direct supervisors over the adjuncts.

    The Great Depression saw a fury of union organizing. Until recently, contingent faculty have lacked their own independent groups. The expanding activism of the Coalition of Contingent Academic Labor and the recent formation of The New Faculty Majority are hopeful signs.

  • Don’t Forget The Manley Plan
  • Posted by Frizbane Manley on March 24, 2009 at 2:30pm EDT
  • Well, dear friends, what do you say that, when we initiate the Manley Plan, we put Weber State University right up there at the top of the list. I’m already working on it.

    Go to …

    http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2008/12/09/adjuncts

    scroll down, and read “Here’s a Win-Win-Win-Win-Win Solution.”

  • Posted by Yet Another Adjunct on March 24, 2009 at 4:00pm EDT
  • It seems to me that one potentially effective way to put pressure on university administrations to address the faculty apartheid is by bringing this appalling situation to the attention of the one group whose good opinion the administrations desperately need, namely, the people who pay tuition--parents. A brainstorm topic: how can we as adjuncts generate publicity that targets the parents of enrolled and soon-to-be-enrolling students of universities?

  • Oversupply? And taking this issue to students and parents.
  • Posted by CUNY adjunct , adjunct at CUNY on March 25, 2009 at 5:45am EDT
  • IHE Reader: This issue is one of oversupply? You don't seem to know the numbers here. For example, I teach in the state system in which I teach, there were 6,000 more tenured/tenure-track jobs available 30 years ago with far fewer students than there are today. Replicate that around the country and picture how many tenure track jobs have disappeared in the last generation. A glut? This is not an issue of oversupply of candidates -- it is about the systematic elimination of tenure track lines.

    "Yet another adjunct" is onto something when s/he says that we need to reach those who are selecting colleges and paying the bills. If students (and their parents) knew these numbers, and were to make the connection between the teaching conditions of adjuncts and the learning conditions for students, at both private and public institutions, all this would have to change. There was an effort to compell colleges to advertise the percentage of contingent facutly they employ last year with the reauthorization of the Higher Ed Act in Congress. (I believe this issue was covered here in IHE.) Unsurprisingly, this provision was removed from the bill. College administrators know they have to hide this.

    Students and their families -- as consumers -- should demand this data. If US World News and Report and Princeton Review advertised adjunct stats, that would have a massive impact. Let's tell them so.

    Here is the contact page for US World News & Report:
    http://www.usnews.com/usnews/usinfo/infomain.htm

    Here is the email address of Robert Franek, VP, The Princeton Review:
    robertf@review.com

  • Oversupply
  • Posted by IHE Reader on March 25, 2009 at 8:15am EDT
  • TDoss, I have no misconceptions about the reality of fewer tenure-track positions. I work in higher education. You shouldn't be so quick to assume what other people have in their minds.

    CUNY Adjunct, I think it is you who doesn't know the numbers. I'm sure we're all in agreement that there are fewer tenure-track positions than there were in the past. At the same time, there has been a boom in the number of doctorates produced (excluding first-professional degrees, such as MD and JD). Here are the numbers:

    http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d07/tables/dt07_258.asp?referrer=report

    In short, fewer tenure-track positions plus more doctorates than ever equals oversupply.

  • Posted by Yet another adjunct on March 26, 2009 at 12:15pm EDT
  • As Marc Bousquet points out How the University Works, the supposed glut in PhDs is due in large part to the universities willfully overproducing them. This is because, one, grad students provide cheap, disposable labor to teach less desirable courses and two, once jettisoned from their universities, many of those who have graduated then enter the labor pool as cheap, disposable adjuncts.

    http://howtheuniversityworks.com/wordpress/

  • oversupply because of overworked few
  • Posted by Mike D , English Instructor at Santa Monica College on March 26, 2009 at 12:15pm EDT
  • IHE Reader,

    You seem to not be familiar with how colleges and universities distributed courses to faculty. Because adjuncts are paid less, they tend to take on more courses than they would otherwise be comfortable with, and because administrators want to get the most bang for the buck on costly benefits for full time, tenure-track faculty, they pressure them to take overload classes. Both result in less work to go around and less time faculty are available to students outside of class.

    If the full time load limit were actually respected and enforced, supply and demand would come more closely into line.

  • Oversupply because demand isn't what you'd like it to be
  • Posted by IHE Reader on March 26, 2009 at 4:30pm EDT
  • What's with all the ad hominem attacks and faulty assumptions about what people do and don't know? Stick to the argument and you will be better off. 

    Mike D: Demand is what the market is willing to pay to acquire some asset. Car companies would love to see higher demand, much as you'd like higher demand for faculty and adjuncts. I don't deny that adjuncts and (some) faculty are overworked, but given the existing level of demand, there is an oversupply. That's all the argument is. 

    Sure, if you could snap your fingers and increase demand, then things would come into closer equilibrium. But until that happens (and I think the horse has already left the barn on this issue), people have to take responsibility for their situations. If one chooses to get a PhD and wants to go into academia, one must face the reality that competition will be stiff. If a person doesn't want to compete (i.e., run the risk of not finding a stable job), then academia isn't the right profession.

  • A Different Perspective
  • Posted by Perturbed , Professor at Weber State University on March 27, 2009 at 5:00am EDT
  • Let me say up front that I agree that lowering salaries is NOT an ideal situation. For anyone. However, after reading the comments from many people, I am a little perturbed by much of what people have said. First, I applaud you for having an opinion, but you state things as if they are fact about an institution you seem to know nothing about. I am a professor at this institution, and here is my perspective. I am very good friends with several adjunct, although our department tends not to use them. The idea that most of our classes are not taught by tenure-track faculty is preposterous. Math and English have higher levels of adjuncts, but otherwise the bulk of the faculty are tenure-track at Weber State. And as far as health care goes, adjuncts by definition are not full-time workers. There are requirements that once a certain number of work hours are met during the school year benefits should be included, but this is not the case for the typical adjunct. If they are full time employees, they are either instructors or tenure track faculty, not adjunct. Most employees who have part time workers don't give them benefits, either, so I am not sure why there is outrage here. In addition, the idea that tenure-track faculty are the bad guys here because we didn't give up our salaries is a bit outrageous. We have a 4/4 teaching load, are expected to conduct reasearch, involve students in research/practicum/internships, serve on numerous committees, seek funding (both internal and external), and advise our students. In general, adjuncts teach their classes and hold office hours. This is not 100%, but that is the norm. In addition, many faculty (I believe more than 1/3) teach overload classes in order to supplement their pay, because OUR pay is so low at Weber State. We are significantly below CUPA, with our assistant profs somewhere in the 80% of CUPA range. I make about half of what several of my friends at other institutions make, and they don't have as rigorous of a teaching load as we do. But why do we put up with it? Because we LIKE our jobs or else we are free to go somewhere else. I hope we don't lose many adjuncts because of the pay cut, but I can understand why we would. However, I challenge them to find more money for their services in the state of Utah, which has state-wide massive budget cuts. In the meantime, my salary is well below where it should be, my health care costs are going up, my overload pay was cut, just like the adjunct salaries, my class sizes are going up because we cannot replace faculty who have left due to budget cuts, and my university is cutting our travel, research, and discretionary funds. And, if you think that cutting adjunct salaries is just adding salt to a wound, since they are the lowest paid, keep in mind that staff are paid even less than adjunct. By cutting salaries by a fraction of the budget cut, we are trying not to terminate ANY jobs, except evidently replacement of tenure-track faculty who are retiring or who leave, because it appears that those are the only positions being cut. Please just keep in mind that instead of getting angry at Weber State, try to imagine a better outlet for your anger. Could we think of a way that perhaps higher education could become better funded? Oh, and did I mention that WSU students pay less than $4000 a year for FULL tuition? For both semesters? We are trying not to raise the cost of tuition (like the University of Utah did) so that more students can attend. We are trying not to cut EVERYONE's pay (like Utah State did, by giving all employees an unpaid spring break). We are trying to survive in the best way we know how. Everyone is hurting, not just adjuncts!!

  • Adjunct Pay
  • Posted by M Ensslin , Art at Bergen Community College on March 27, 2009 at 1:45pm EDT
  • I don't get it. I have to think most adjuncts have a master's or perhaps even higher. On one hand I can understand people seeing an adjunct position as a stepping stone or an opportunity to at least prove oneself as a worthy candidate for a tenure track consideration. An investment of sorts with a small return or perhaps a lottery ticket. (You have to be in it to win it) But as that may not be for years, (If ever) sooner or later it comes down to dollars and cents and the need for a living wage. There needs to be a sense of fairness in the form of compensation for one's time and expense as opposed to working like some indentured servant. I see adjuncts traveling long distances, (Out of state even) paying income tax in two states, tolls, gas and by the end of the day coming home with little more than the rewarding feeling that comes from having taught. Adjunct pay is insulting. Cutting adjunct pay is like robbing the blind. I say blind because you would think that someone with a master's degree would be able to do the math.

    M Ensslin

  • Posted by TDoss on March 28, 2009 at 5:30am EDT
  • IHE reader, in your simple equation of

    "fewer tenure-track positions plus more doctorates than ever equals oversupply,"

    you leave out the most central aspect of demand, the number of students, which has increased
    a great deal as the portion of the population seeking higher education has increased. Not only has the percentage of high school graduates enrolling in college increased by between 1/5 and 1/6th since the 1970s, but vastly more people return to college years after high school graduation now than in the 1970s. Immigrant populations at colleges and universities have increased, as have the range on non-degree programs located on college campuses. An increased number of doctorates is warranted to meet increased demand.

  • US News is on it
  • Posted by SUNY adjunct , writing program at Buffalo State College on March 28, 2009 at 10:15am EDT
  • It's a good idea to alert parents to faculty inequities via the media, though in their role as consumers, parents tend to think w/their pocketbooks at least as much as administrators do. And US News & World Report, at least, is aware of the huge discrepancy between the two faculty tiers. See its 7 November 2008 estimate of the per-course salaries of FT and PT faculty nationwide: $8,000 to $1,800, respectively. That makes for some highly paid research and committee work, doesn't it?

  • Demand
  • Posted by IHE Reader on March 28, 2009 at 12:45pm EDT
  • TDoss, it appears we think of demand differently. The demand I'm referring to is the demand on the part of colleges for faculty labor. Colleges want to maximize efficiency by finding the "right" number of faculty FTEs to service some number of students, and they want to do it in a "cost effective" manner. The "right" number from an institutional financial perspective is different (lower) than from a faculty perspective. Both perspectives are self-interested.

    The demand you are speaking of is demand on the part of students and families for higher education. The supply of higher education providers hasn't increased too much since the boom after WW2 through the 60s. And yet, demand for higher education has increased in the face of changing labor market conditions, de-industrialization, and the erosion of the value of the high school diploma. This latter supply-and-demand scenario has contributed, in part, to the continued increase in the cost of higher education.

    My equation is "simple" in the sense that all equations are simple. They reduce complex phenomena into conceptual parts to streamline a problem. But there is nothing "simple" about why there are fewer tenure-track positions (i.e., lower demand for faculty labor) or why there are more doctorates than ever (i.e., more supply of faculty labor).

    Believe it or not, I'm sympathetic to the plight of adjunct faculty and other workers in the economy who don't make much money.  However, I separate the human/personal side of the problem from the business side. I don't engage in conspiracy theories and demonization of college administrators. They have a job to do, which is to run institutions efficiently.

  • Posted by Philip on March 28, 2009 at 4:00pm EDT
  • I don't think teachers are better and more deserving people than janitors, but I don't think the reverse is true, either. Here's a sad fact about the way these two groups are treated in California community colleges.

    There are no adjunct janitors or gardeners or food service employees. A classified employee who works fewer than 40 hours/week receives pro rata pay and benefits.

    A part-timer teaching in a classroom earns roughly 30% of what his full-time colleague makes. A part-time janitor cleaning the same classroom is paid at the same rate as his full-time colleagues, and he receives proportional H & W benefits and retirement contributions as well.

    So how does "the market" justify this inequality?

  • Perturbed, for real?
  • Posted by Harry S. Truman on March 29, 2009 at 2:15pm EDT
  • That other part-time positions (e.g., McDonalds, Burger King, Home Depot) offer low pay and don't offer benefits is not a good reason for WSU or any other university to do the same. Two wrongs, especially in this case, don't make a right. I'm surprised that a tenured professor would argue this kind of fallacious argument! UGH!

    Also, I very much endorse an independent audit of WSU and other universities dealing with budget crunches by reducing part-time employees pay. I'm sure that 70-90% of student tuition goes into administration salaries, benefits, and other useless entities. Lets start cutting budgets by reducing the number of administration positions, the salaries of the positions not cut, the wild benefits administrators receive, and the supplies they endlessly consume (think here of the amount of paper administrators have used to call faculty's attention to budget problems; the cost of that paper may have paid the difference in adjunct pay).

  • Salary decrease is a blow, but EVERYBODY feels it
  • Posted by Jackie on April 1, 2009 at 1:30pm EDT
  • Everywhere I turn I hear of layoffs and budget cuts. While the number of students is growing, budgets have STILL been cut in education, despite some of the relief funds. At Weber State University, they have decreased adjunct salaries in ADDITION to cutting benefits for existing full-time employees and even laying off several full-time employees. Everyone has felt the sting, not just adjunct, in the name of preserving most jobs and keeping up with the rising student population. I agree that more voices needed to be heard in regards to this decision, but I can see the predicament. Hindsight is 20/20.

  • Update
  • Posted by WSUProf on April 6, 2009 at 1:30pm EDT
  • The College of Business at WSU has announced a plan to improve adjunct pay. It goes into effect this summer.