Search News


Browse Archives

News

Using Adjuncts, Off the Payroll

August 11, 2009

Share This Story

FREE Daily News Alerts

Advertisement

The way Kirtland Community College sees it, the idea is a win-win. But the idea -- taking adjuncts off the college's payroll and having them employed by a private company, which would not contribute to state retirement accounts -- is alarming activists for adjuncts.

And while Kirtland says that it wants only to use the outside company as the official employer, with the college retaining the role of recruiting and hiring adjuncts, the company has broader ambitions, including creating a pool of adjuncts from which colleges might get instructors without having to pay state benefits for any of them. The company -- which currently performs a similar service in placing substitute teachers at hundreds of Michigan school districts -- says it is in discussions with several community colleges in addition to Kirtland, but declined to name them.

Dale Shantz, director of human resources at Kirtland, said that no final decision has been made, but that there is strong interest in moving ahead and the college's board has had discussions about the concept. Here's how he said it would work:

The college would recruit and select adjuncts, and then pass the names on to the Professional Educational Services Group, which would hire these individuals and assign them to Kirtland. Kirtland would pay the company a fee of 14 percent of the pay of those adjuncts who are company employees but work at the college, and also the salaries themselves. The company would then be the employer of record, pay Social Security, withhold taxes and so forth. The key savings for the college is that Michigan requires payments of 16.94 percent of payroll (a high figure compared to other states) for employees' state retirement accounts. As soon as the adjuncts don't become employees of state agencies, that requirement goes away. In addition, the 3 percent that state employees must pay is also waived.

Shantz said that relatively few adjuncts stay at the college long enough to use their state retirement benefits later. Further, he said, those with at least four years' vesting in the system would continue to be college employees, so they wouldn't feel that "the rules had changed" after their employment started. He said that adjuncts would gain because they wouldn't have to pay the 3 percent into the state account.

The main reason for considering this idea, he said, is that it could yield "substantial savings." If the college did this for all of its adjuncts (it hires about 80 a semester), it would save well over $100,000 annually. Because some adjuncts with more years at the college won't be included, initial savings are more likely to be in the $50,000 range, but that would grow over time as some adjuncts retire and are replaced by adjuncts who were never employees of the college. Adjuncts at the college are not unionized, so this is a policy that Shantz said could be adopted without collective bargaining.

At the same time, Shantz said that there were potential downsides. He said he wasn't sure if this could hurt adjunct recruiting efforts, although he said that he believes the 3 percent gain could be key. "Anecdotally, we think that they would rather see an increase in their paychecks [than have that money] that they contribute into a fund they may not use." Asked if such a move might make adjuncts feel less valued and connected to the college, Shantz said that was "a concern." But he added that "our savings could enable us to hire another full-time faculty member or several more adjuncts."

Tom Quinn, president of the college, said that context was key to understanding the idea's attraction. The college will likely be facing "significant" budget cuts in the years ahead, and is already operating on a lean budget, given Michigan's poor economy. "My question is: What can we do to shift spending priorities," he said. "Everything is on the table."

Scott Van Lente, vice president for sales and marketing at PESG, as the company is known, said he sees growing interest from colleges in the services offered. "We create efficiencies and colleges are looking for efficiencies," he said. Van Lente predicted that there would be "a pool of well qualified adjuncts" that are created from Kirtland and other community colleges. While he said that Kirtland has not expressed interest in having the company create the pool, he thought other colleges would. "If they want to interview, that's fine, but many colleges feel that our hiring process is more in depth than their current hiring process."

Van Lente added that his company performs services -- outside of interviewing -- that most colleges don't do, such as requiring all the adjuncts hired to go through sexual harassment education, or conducting full criminal background checks on all of them. "The things we are doing are raising the bar," he said.

While PESG was founded in Michigan, it is moving into Indiana and Pennsylvania as well, he said.

While Kirtland and PESG see the logic of such arrangements, others do not.

Cary Nelson, national president of the American Association of University Professors, noted that one way adjuncts are trying to improve their economic well-being is by getting contributions to retirement funds. Many adjuncts work at multiple colleges, and so adding up various contributions to retirement funds can become -- over a period of years -- funds that may make a difference in retirement, even if the funds from any one college job may be small.

"It's important that colleges make contributions, however modest, for adjuncts' futures," he said. "Any effort to deny adjuncts their modest contributions in a retirement fund is so unethical that I would describe it as despicable," Nelson said. He added that he had never heard of another college taking this step.

Keith Hoeller, co-founder of the Washington State Part-Time Faculty Association, who has been involved in efforts to secure retirement benefits for adjuncts, said he saw several problems with the idea under consideration in Michigan. He said that such a switch will make it more difficult for adjuncts to organize unions and protect their rights. He said that what the college describes as savings is really just "shortchanging the salaries and benefits of the part-time faculty."

As for the financial issues cited by the college, Hoeller said: "It is unfortunate that so many administrative decisions regarding part-time faculty are driven by financial rather than academic considerations."

See all postings »
Advertisement
Advertisement

Matching Jobs

Comments on Using Adjuncts, Off the Payroll

  • Despicable
  • Posted by Mary Burgan , Ret at Indiana Universitiy/AAUP on August 11, 2009 at 8:15am EDT
  • "Despicable" is the exactly right word to describe this effort to further exploit adjunct employees. And, of course, grandfathering the old ones helps to keep the new faculty in the dark about what meager rights they should have. When will their full-time colleagues rise up to support them? Despicable!

  • taking away adjuncts' retirement contributions from colleges
  • Posted by Jan Bone , adjunct faculty, English composition at Harper College and Roosevelt University on August 11, 2009 at 8:45am EDT
  • As an adjunct who teaches both at a university and a community college, I'm appalled that the Michigan community college is even considering such a plan as described in the 8/11/09 article. I hope the board is deluged with residents protesting the idea, and that the local newspapers and radio stations are denouncing it. I hope the Michigan state legislature is fully aware of it, and that elected representatives there can pass legislation forbidding such practices.

    Adjunct salaries are far too low anyway, in my opinion, for qualified instructors who are usually doing a thorough, dedicated job of teaching their students, and even if this idea saves the community college from having to raise tuition or the legislature from voting additional state funding, it is not the way to go. Remember, also, the feral law against double-dipping - that is, if you've worked for employers under the social security system and the state retirement system, you lose a certain percentage of your social security income, rather than being allowed to collect under both. Has anyone analyzed this proposal for the effect it might have on that--on any employees who, if it goes into effect, could fall under double-dipping legislation?

  • Surprised?
  • Posted by Linda Aragoni at http://www.you-can-teach-writing.com on August 11, 2009 at 8:45am EDT
  • I was not surprised to see adjuncts losing benefits. What surprised me was that they had some. I've never had any benefits as an adjunct, except a parking sticker, and I felt lucky to get that without having to pay for it.

    I expect full-time faculty will rise up to push for adjuncts' rights. It will happen the same week the Ivy League announces abolition of college football programs.

  • shaky ground
  • Posted by random thoughts on August 11, 2009 at 9:15am EDT
  • I understand the potential savings for the school (and what school doesn't need to save money these days, particularly as public funding declines). But this strikes me as open to legal challenges. When the college interviews and selects those it wants, it is acting like an employer. It would be different if the outside organization screened potential employees and let the school pick from among them. As it is, this looks like a shell game. I would hate to be the attorney attempting to defend the college on this one.

  • Other opportunities?
  • Posted by Observer on August 11, 2009 at 11:00am EDT
  • As colleges and universities are forced to cut costs, it should come as no surprise that they are moving in this direction.

    That said, I wonder if as this concept advances, it has more cost savings opportunities in administrative staffing functions. Certainly, there are more employees in this group so there should be more to save. I'm also going to go out on a limb and guess that they usually not unionized either.

    Reading various articles and comments on IHE, it seems that the Administrative/Staff areas of higher ed have grown exponentially over the past 10 years. This may be the greatest opportunity for savings for this model.

  • Adjuncts 'retire'? With what?
  • Posted by JS on August 11, 2009 at 11:45am EDT
  • "Because some adjuncts with more years at the college won't be included, initial savings are more likely to be in the $50,000 range, but that would grow over time as some adjuncts retire and are replaced by adjuncts who were never employees of the college."

    Over time? Nonsense. There will be no 'retirements' of adjuncts (as if they have enough money to do that anyhow) - the grandfathered adjuncts will cost the college more than the PESG temp agencies' scabs, so the college will give the classes to the cheaper labor. And if they're soulless enough to do it at all, they'll do it fast.

  • adjunct
  • Posted by GTK on August 11, 2009 at 12:15pm EDT
  • Gosh

  • Figures....
  • Posted by Hannah , Associate Professor on August 11, 2009 at 1:00pm EDT
  • The little guys always get the short end of the stick, while we continue to increase the number of expensive administrators. Where's the cost saving here? In addition, I shudder to think about businesses choosing adjuncts for universities, simply because businesses are footing the bill. Quality will be a real issue here, as well as cronyism.

    I agree with our first poster. I watch this country becoming more Third Word-ly every day. It's frightening that we are dismantling the teaching backbone of institutions and replacing it with a bunch of headless, bottom line business wheeler-dealers. G-d help higher ed.

  • People Are Seeing What They Want to See
  • Posted by HR Guy on August 11, 2009 at 1:30pm EDT
  • A few thoughts:

    1) "Random Thoughts" is absolutely right. If the college is doing the recruiting and the selecting and then telling their contractor to hire them, the college is the de facto employer of these individuals no matter how they try to slice it differently. It's definitely a challenging legal environment the way they've set it up. It would be better for them to leave the recruiting and hiring up to the private-sector contractor and for the college to simply indicate to the contractor how many adjunct instructors it needs and in which areas and leave it up to the contractor to hire to meet the requirements.

    2) It seems to me that everyone is assuming that the adjunct instructors come up with a raw deal in this. We don't know what benefits or salaries the contractor is able to offer. If the adjunct instructors were to really and truly work for the contractor and the contractor had to compete for talent to fulfill its commitments with area colleges and universities, it could actually provide some degree of employment stability, full-time work, and consistent benefits plans for those instructors than the semester-to-semester existence so many seem to have now. I see a great deal of potential for a "win-win" for both area colleges and universities and for adjunct instructors here. And, if it is as bad as many of you seem to think it would be, there's nothing that precludes unionization of that contractor employer's workforce. Indeed, it presents a tremendous union organizing opportunity, as well.

    3) This plan has been brought about by the college's desire to avoid incurring expenses for a rather expensive public employee's retirement system. They have to pay into it for their adjunct instructors even though these individuals are rarely employed long enough to retire. Perhaps a reasonable alternative would be to exempt such temporary employees from the retirement system. This would likely be decried as reducing the "benefits" of adjunct instructors but could be a reasonable trade-off.

  • Posted by WTF on August 11, 2009 at 3:00pm EDT
  • Why am I not shocked the HR Guy thinks temping is a win-win.

    So...an adjunct who normally would get $2K a course will still get $2K a course, right? Plus, maybe some benefits? Maybe. [Doubtful.]

    And what does the Prof-Temp Agency get? Probably another $2K a course.

    I know! Why doesn't the school just hire the adjunct for $2K a course, plus bennies, and SAVE that extra $2K? Or, hey! Let's be revolutionary...GIVE the adjunct a contract for $4K a course plus bennies and then they can be secure in their staffing needs from year to year.

    Oh, that's right....THAT would be inefficient.

    Just like hiring temporary secretaries instead of hiring (and training) your own for the wage they deserve. Much better to have an outside organization make TONS OF MONEY off of the institution's professional laziness.

  • Posted by Piss Poor Prof at www.burntoutadjunct.wordpress.com on August 11, 2009 at 3:00pm EDT
  • It comes as no surprise the higher ed will, ultimately follow along with the factory model of outsourcing labor. The rise in hiring "project" based consultant labor (at whatever level of pay scale) has risen in the last decade to be, in some sectors, assumed (IT has been on the forefront of this business model). In fact, the next logical step would be to outsource online instruction to overseas labor markets--which are highly educated and work at a much lower rate (again, see the IT business model).

    However, I wonder about the specific business model discussed here. I wonder, specifically, about the legality of such an enterprise. The sourcing agency has an established practice in K-12, but those funding models are different than the federally-backed loans offered at higher ed. So, for a school to offer a course (a purchased service) paid for through federal aid and loans (payment), I wonder if the revenue streams flows as directly? Legal minds should look into this.

  • Posted by Terri on August 11, 2009 at 4:15pm EDT
  • I have to buy my own parking pass, but frankly, there is a lot of competition for a class to teach. I feel fortunate to working at all most quarters.

  • Privatization of Public Resources
  • Posted by Roger Erickson , Retired on August 11, 2009 at 4:45pm EDT
  • This article is about the creeping privatization of public education in a 2 yr. college that has no tenure track.
    ( braintrack.com/college/u/kirtland-community-college). The article fails to mention that fact. In other words, it will privatize the whole faculty of 35.
    In browsing their website one of their proposals is to offer “upscale crafts classes” I don’t know what those are but it sounds like the basket weaving of the 60’s. My guess is this is a trial run or pilot program for this company. Staffing, as this kind of privatization is called, is second to outsourcing as an activity that will hollow out the unity and productivity of the local community.
    Another guess is that 100,000 dollars could be saved by cutting two administrativue positions and their secretaries, or even better creating four commission only recruiting jobs for the 4 being cut. If they hang around the unemployment offices and veterans groups they could make their quotas by only working 3 days a week, and the other two days enrolled in the “upscale crafts class.”

  • Posted by Seth , Associate Prof of English at West Chester U of PA on August 11, 2009 at 4:45pm EDT
  • If it's such a great idea to use non-state labor to teach classes, let's outsource management too. Why is it OK to oust adjuncts from state benefits when managers still get them? I'd bet a lot of money that the managers' retirement-plan contributions are a lot more expensive than the adjuncts'. If money is so tight, and this idea is so bloody smart, let's see management kick in too.

  • Adjunctification of more . . .
  • Posted by DFS on August 11, 2009 at 5:15pm EDT
  • Let's try to adjunctify some more positions: president, vice-p's, deans, directors, etc. In fact, let's just 'temp' all of the administrative personnel, too.

    That should save a lot of money, and I'll bet quality wouldn't take much of a dive, either.

  • Numbers aren't that difficult
  • Posted by Numereate Prof on August 11, 2009 at 5:45pm EDT
  • The answers to WTF's questions, easily gleaned from the article, are

    Yes, although the college could now afford to pay them somewhat more.

    No, since I assume "voluntary" benefits means they come out of the employee's pay. I also assume adjuncts do not get health care. If they do, the numbers below will change a lot.

    Much less than $2K per course. They get 14% of gross pay, less the 7.65% employer's share of FICA and Medicare. The company grosses $127 per course if the pay rate is $2000 per class. That is gross income, not net profit.

    Because they don't have an extra $2K. The college currently pays an extra 16.94% ($389) for state retirement on top of FICA and Medicare, so they save $212 per course with this deal and any employee who does not expect to get vested and retire in this system saves $60 (the required employee contribution to the retirement system).

    If the college gave half of their "profit" to the adjuncts as a pay raise, that would be $160 per course that could go into a 401k or ira that would be 100% vested, or be put toward health insurance through the company. If they don't do this, they deserve public humiliation.

  • rent-a-prof?
  • Posted by Kangaroo prof on August 11, 2009 at 9:00pm EDT
  • Combined with the continuing trend of hiring adjuncts instead of creating/extending tenure lines, this new development is disturbing.

    Is rent-a-professor the future of higher ed? I sure hope not.

  • Exploitation
  • Posted by Lynne R , Doctoral Student at California Institute of Integral Studies on August 11, 2009 at 9:15pm EDT
  • This is yet another sad level of exploitation. Shameful.

  • Don't mourn, organize!
  • Posted by Jeff Hornstein , Organizing Coordinator at SEIU 32BJ on August 12, 2009 at 12:15pm EDT
  • As a former adjunct who tried to cobble together a living for 5 years, I agree this is totally reprehensible and represents yet another right-wing assault on the social contract. All justified in the name of saving taxpayers money in the form of pension costs, not realizing that it's penny-wise but very pound-foolish thinking, a product of our "immediate gratification" political culture.

    It should be fought tooth and nail. But there needs to be a strategy to deal with the possibility that such a new regime will be installed.

    In that vein, there may be a very faint silver lining in this cloud. Some of us who've organized in higher ed talked years ago about forming an "adjunct hiring hall" akin to the building and construction trades. If, for example, Bryn Mawr College or Haverford (to use local Philly-area examples with which I'm most familiar) wanted to hire an adjunct, they'd have to go through the union, pay area standard wages and benefits, etc. A regional adjunct union would fight to build community and defend area standards. The biggest conceptual and practical challenge was figuring out how to construct bargaining units across disparate colleges; contractors can do the work for us.

    Organizing contracted-out employees has its challenges, but a "Justice for Janitors"-style campaign for adjuncts could start a national movement.

  • We're already there . . .
  • Posted by Dr. Eliza Dolittle , Adjunct in Hell at Big Western Univ. on August 12, 2009 at 12:15pm EDT
  • We're already at "rent-a-prof" levels. When the AAUP states in a report from the fall that, on average, 70% of all US faculty are contingent, we're already in the equivalent position temps.

    So, when does the banged up white van come around to pick me up with the rest of the scholarly day laborers?

     

     

     

  • they've got to be kidding ...
  • Posted by tired old man , Retired Teacher at Retired on August 12, 2009 at 2:15pm EDT
  • the administration and board at this college have got to be real IDIOTS. the proposal they're considering adopting has got to be every education administrator's NIGHTMARE. do the math: 35 full-time instructors and at least 80 adjunct instructors. can you imagine what would happen if these adjuncts (or the corporation providing their services to the college) were to threaten to WITHHOLD their services? for the college to contract with this corporation for the services of the corporation's employees is tantamount to collecting all your part-time teachers (who are probably providing the real backbone of educational services to your students) and giving them much the same power as they would have as a union. except, of course, that the corporation representing their interests probably won't feel either the loyalty or the educational pressures that adjunct instructors (on their own) would.

  • Posted by Jeff Hornstein on August 12, 2009 at 3:00pm EDT
  • Re: Tired Old Man. SHHH!!! Maybe they're not smart enough to have figured this out...

  • Disgraceful
  • Posted by Ashamed at KCC , English Instructor at Kirtland Community College on August 12, 2009 at 4:00pm EDT
  • Let me assure you that part-time instructors at Kirtland Community College are not even paid $2K per class -- try about $1500 - 1600, depending on their length of service at the college and their degree. -- As a full-time instructor at KCC, I'm ashamed that the college is considering further marginalizing my part-time colleagues and further moving against the idea of "community" that once made the term "community college" meaningful.

  • eliminating adjuncts in Louisiana
  • Posted by David at University of New Orleans on August 13, 2009 at 11:15pm EDT
  • It gets worse: here in Louisiana, the governor (Bobby Jindal, Republican presidential hopeful) has decided that budget cuts are not sufficient -- he wants to reduce the number of people on the state payroll. Last week he ordered all universities to limit hiring to June 09 levels, thus preventing us from hiring adjuncts for the fall. This was 3 weeks from the start of the semester, with courses filling fast and adjuncts hard at work preparing those courses. As I write, we are still unsure what will happen, but it looks as if the adjuncts will be summarily fired and regular faculty will be ordered, if possible to teach overloads (ironically, we are allowed to keep the money we would have paid the adjuncts, roughly $3,000 per course). It is possible that courses will be canceled for lack of instructors and hundreds, maybe thousands, of students will find their graduation progress slowed or stopped. But, hey, Jindal will be able to claim he reduced the number of FTEs on the state payroll. Appalling bad management and an outrageous way to run higher education.

  • Posted by AJC on August 15, 2009 at 8:15am EDT
  • This is absolutely horrible. Hard enough for young faculty to get ahead in their careers and lives without taking away their retirement benefits, too! These colleges are soon going to find nobody is going to be willing to work there. Who suffers then? The students who need an affordable community college so they can go on with THEIR lives. It's lose-lose for everyone.

  • "Americans just don't want to do this work..."
  • Posted by Prof Red on August 26, 2009 at 5:00am EDT
  • The lie that Democrats used to justify bringing in illegal immigrants to work at poverty level will be the same lie they will tell you as they champion PhD candidates from oppressive countries to take over university teaching at poverty level as "a good thing."

    Adjuncts, welcome to the profession in which "Americans just don't want to do this work."