Search News


Browse Archives

News

The Uninsured Adjunct

November 30, 2009

Share This Story

FREE Daily News Alerts

Advertisement

While the national debate on health care continues, some adjuncts are trying to draw attention to their status among the well-educated professionals who get little or no insurance from their employers -- and who many times go without any coverage.

Adjuncts at Massachusetts community colleges sued the state last week, charging that they were entitled to coverage through state plans, and that they are unfairly classified as consultants rather than employees. Whether adjuncts in public higher education have coverage depends largely on how states define employees and employee status. As the Massachusetts ruling illustrates, adjuncts who teach multiple courses -- semester after semester, at the same institutions -- can still be denied coverage by their colleges.

Activists for adjuncts hope that the Massachusetts case will spur others, as part of a campaign to use the courts and the court of public opinion to win more health coverage. Adjuncts in Washington State who sued did win coverage, and in some cases adjunct unions have won coverage through collective bargaining. But, particularly in states or colleges without faculty unions or favorable state laws to rely on, many are hoping for reforms at the national level or for institutional change set off by compelling examples of non-tenure-track professors who have been unable to get health coverage.

John Cipora, one of the plaintiffs in the Massachusetts case, teaches three or four courses a semester in psychology or sociology at Holyoke Community College. He's 62 and earns about $35,000 a year (with a doctorate). He doesn't have health insurance and was able to persuade the state to waive its legal requirement that he obtain health insurance because he was able to show he couldn't afford it.

Cynthia Duda is another plaintiff in the case. She teaches five or six courses a semester, and a few in the summer, at North Shore Community College and Bunker Hill Community College. She pays for her own health insurance, and recently downgraded her coverage from a plan that cost her $909 a month (for coverage similar to what she would receive at minimal cost working in a permanent position) to a more minimal policy, for which she pays $638 a month. She said that she's 61 and doesn't feel she could go without coverage, but that she regrets having to make do with a lesser plan.

She has no coverage for weekend assistance unless she is in such bad shape that it would justify admission to a hospital emergency room. "If I get sick on the weekend, I'm stuck."

In many cases where adjuncts do receive some health insurance coverage, they must teach certain numbers of courses and do so for some specified number of semesters. The theory behind such requirements is that the college or state shouldn't have to pay for insurance for, say, a lawyer who teaches one course at a law school every other year. But the Massachusetts plaintiffs are all individuals whose work hours far exceed the state's normal requirement for part timers to receive health benefits (18.75 hours a week) and all have worked year after year at their colleges.

The reason cited by state officials is the crux of the suit: Massachusetts considers all of these adjuncts to be "consultants," not employees, even though some have taught every semester for five or more years. That's because they are technically hired only one semester at a time. (The lawsuit references this rationale, and while state officials would not discuss it publicly, they did confirm the accuracy of the suit's explanation of the state justification of denying the benefits.)

The Massachusetts Community College Council, the faculty union for adjuncts, which joined the suit, estimates that there are hundreds of adjunct faculty members who exceed the 18.75 hours a week requirement and who would be receiving health insurance if acknowledged as employees.

"We have hundreds of adjuncts teaching term after term after term. How can they not be employees?" asked Joe LeBlanc, a full timer at Northern Essex Community College and president of the council, an affiliate of the National Education Association. The state relies on adjuncts to teach about two-thirds of courses in the community colleges, while pretending that they aren't employing any of them, he said. "Adjuncts are a used and abused cash cow for the state," he said.

LeBlanc said that his union has tried to raise the issue in contract negotiations, but has been rebuffed by college presidents, who cite the state's Department of Higher Education and other state agencies as insisting that adjuncts are temporary consultants.

One reason the suit charges that this is a bogus explanation is that the state has given adjuncts seniority rights; after successive semesters receiving good reviews, adjuncts can be given preference for courses in the next semester. LeBlanc said it makes no sense for the state to grant seniority rights to adjuncts if they are not employees.

Richard M. Freeland, commissioner of higher education in Massachusetts, issued a statement in response to questions about the suit. He said: "I recognize the importance of adjunct faculty to the public higher education system and the great service they provide in helping to educate our students, especially at this time of expanding enrollments across our public campuses. I also recognize their need, shared by all residents of the Commonwealth, for affordable health insurance, but I am not in a position to comment further on the legal merits of the suit."

Maria Maisto, president of the board of New Faculty Majority, a national adjunct group, said that she didn't know of national data on the percentage of adjuncts who work without health insurance provided by employers or without any insurance at all. But she said that the lack of health insurance as a benefit is among "the top concerns" of adjuncts she talks to.

In Washington State, adjuncts went to court in 2004 and won an agreement expanding their rights to health insurance. There, the requirement used by the state is that one must work roughly half time to earn the right to benefits. But adjuncts were losing benefits when they didn't work in the summer or when they hit any one quarter where they didn't get a schedule equal to half time. The settlement to the lawsuit said that adjuncts could use averaging over a year, so that a single quarter below half time would not cause them to lose health insurance. And they also won the right not to lose insurance when they met requirements during the traditional academic year, but didn't in the summer.

Keith Hoeller, co-founder of the Washington Part-Time Faculty Association and one of those who sued over benefits in his state, said that "class action lawsuits are a powerful weapon in the adjunct's arsenal." He said that he supported the idea of trying to use collective bargaining to win benefits, but that it was important to have alternatives.

"If we are unable to obtain justice at the bargaining table, and our state legislators will not heed our call, then we must ask the courts to intervene," Hoeller said.

Facing Cancer Without Health Insurance

The case of Doug Wright represents for many adjuncts a worst-case scenario. Wright taught in a variety of humanities disciplines as an adjunct, full time and part time, at several colleges in Salt Lake City, including Salt Lake Community College, the University of Utah and now at Westminster College. At Westminster, he was at one point receiving health insurance, as he was teaching full time although off the tenure track.

Then the college authorized the creation of a tenure-track position, and while Wright applied, he was passed over. (Like plenty of adjuncts who teach year after year, Wright doesn't have a doctorate, so he said he wasn't surprised by the decision to hire someone who has one.)

When the position was filled, Westminster still had some courses for Wright to teach, but he fell to part time from full time -- and lost his health insurance because the college does not provide it to those who work part time. In May he was diagnosed with lung cancer, and he has had to navigate treatment without insurance. Friends have made a video about him, featuring interviews with his students and faculty colleagues, about how inspirational they find his teaching and how frustrated they are that he must face such a serious health crisis without insurance.

In an interview last week, Wright said he is now "struggling" with the cancer and that he fears he may soon be unable to make it to a classroom to teach. He said he may look for distance courses so he can teach from home. Asked for thoughts on the adjunct push for health insurance, he said that "adjuncts should have health insurance because everyone should have health insurance."

The vulnerability to losing health insurance with a change in work status -- illustrated most dramatically in Wright's case -- gnaws at the Massachusetts plaintiffs as well. One adjunct there said that he had a worry about one possible state response to an adjunct victory in the suit. The state could, he said, just cut all the adjuncts hours to below 18.75 hours a week, and then they would have reduced pay (and money), and still not have insurance.

See all postings »
Advertisement
Advertisement

Matching Jobs

Comments on The Uninsured Adjunct

  • Posted by Judith on November 30, 2009 at 8:00am EST
  • Massachusetts also does not contribute to social security for adjuncts; instead, they set up a phony pension scheme whereby they take money out of adjuncts' pay and put it into a savings account--and don't contribute anything themselves.

    After 13 years of working as an adjunct in a Massachusetts community college, I don't ever expect to be able to retire from my new full-time job.

  • "Liberal Massachusetts"
  • Posted by Levon Chorbajian , Professor of Sociology at U. of Massachusetts Lowell on November 30, 2009 at 8:30am EST
  • That adjunct professors are consultants and not workers is a pretty transparent fiction long used by administrators in "liberal Massachusetts" to justify the exploitation of their adjunct faculty. This lawsuit is long, long overdue.
    As for your comment that the theory behind the consultant fiction is to prevent the state from having to pay for the health insurance of an attorney who teaches a course every other year, people in other parts of the country should know that "liberal Massachusetts" does not even have a state law school.

  • Adjunct Health Benefit Need Not Universal
  • Posted by Keith Johnson on November 30, 2009 at 10:30am EST
  • Discussion of the need for, and cost of, health insurance for adjunct faculty often fails to consider the great differences among adjuncts. Studies have consistently shown that half or fewer of the adjunct faculty have need for health insurance. This need, however, is (after job security) the highest for adjuncts who don't have health insurance from other sources. These are the freelance type, cobbling together an income, often from being adjuncts on different campuses.

    Three main types of adjuncts are already covered by health insurance: (1) those who work full time elsewhere, often outside of academia, and also teach part-time; (2) retirees who continue to work by teaching part-time; and (3) adjunct spouses of employees covered by employer plans.

    The Massachusetts case illustrates why keeping these categories separate is important: the state case considers adjuncts as consultants, Type (1) of those who don't usually require health insurance, while the professors bringing the lawsuit typify the freelance type who desperately need it.

    One conclusion from considering the diversity of needs among different types of adjuncts is that providing health insurance to them would not be as costly as feared, since many are already covered.

  • Shocking
  • Posted by Belinda on November 30, 2009 at 10:30am EST
  • Thank you IHE for this article. I guess I knew that adjuncts were treated differently but this is shocking. Not employees? No health care? What about other benefits? I'm guessing the only "benefit" is the priviledge of working at the college/univ.

    Adjuncts need to go public. I doubt that students and parents know what is going on at these institutions.

    I wish them well in their pursuit of health care.

  • Will It Change the Game?
  • Posted by Eric , Assistant Professor of History on November 30, 2009 at 10:30am EST
  • Colleges and universities have had great incentive to hire adjuncts because they don't have to insure them. If schools were forced to offer insurance to adjuncts, might that not snowball into hiring fewer adjuncts or hiring them as instructors on a more permanent basis? If a school must insure an adjunct who teaches four courses a semester, why not reclassify that person as full-time, non-tenture track? Or, with someone who regularly teaches two classes a semester, why not officially label that person half-time? It is my understanding that at UMass-Amherst those who work half-time are eligible for insurance. Adjuncts who like the flexibility their status offers might not like this kind of change, but for adjuncts of another mind it might provide some needed stability.

  • Need for a public option
  • Posted by Hannah , Ex-Adjunked on November 30, 2009 at 11:15am EST
  • In CA, adjuncts who have taught steadily for many years and who might qualify for plans in some districts that cover adjuncts are being laid off in record numbers. Thousands are also losing what little health coverage they have, and COBRA is simply too expensive.
    The main ridiculousness of this tragedy is that faculty who are tasked with educating over half of community college students to accreditation and state degree standars are trashed at every possible juncture. Without any limit on how mamny potential CC teachers can enter graduate schools, there is a huge, almost infinte supply of teachers who will work under sweatshop conditions without complaining. And districts strapped for state money to support politically unglamorous CC's take full advantage of this. No health insurance? If some faculty die because of it, no problem; there are a hundred or more reploacements ready to take a class on a Friday night at midnight, on ten minute's notice.
    It will take dozens of (expensive) reforms to fix the adjunct's working conditions. But for now, we have class of employees that could certainly benefit from having a public health insurance option.

  • what about...
  • Posted by An Adjunct on November 30, 2009 at 11:45am EST
  • In CA, as Hannah points out, some adjuncts do have insurance. But that's only if they teach in one district. I teach in two. One class for one district, two classes at another. I am technically full time, and technically eligible for health insurance. But because I'm in two different districts, I'm not eligible in either, and that's just fine with the administrators I talk to.

    Ah, the joys of being a freeway flyer.

  • Clarification
  • Posted by Betsy Smith , Adjunct Professor of ESL at Cape Cod Community College on November 30, 2009 at 11:45am EST
  • I would like to add a brief clarification to this article. I am one of the plaintiffs in the suit, but I am only teaching one course this semester and have only been offered one for the spring. This was not my choice since, when there has been sufficiently high enrollment, I have always taught two sections/semester. While the lawsuit focuses on providing benefits for contingent faculty whose workload is greater than the mandated 18 1/2 hours, it also includes people like me. Legislation passed by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts requires all employers to offer a health plan to their employees or pay a penalty. It also requires that everyone carry insurance. The Commonwealth is my employer, but it does not contribute a penny to the $850.56 I pay Blue Cross/Blue Shield every month for a mid-level policy.

  • Terrible
  • Posted by B. on November 30, 2009 at 12:45pm EST
  • How awful, people being forced to work against their will. The U.S. Marines should go in, armed to the teeth, and ..

    Oh. They are NOT being forced to work against their will?

    Never mind.

  • will
  • Posted by Hoppingmadjunct , lecturer, still, since 1984 at SUNY, RIT, AUC, U. of WI, Clemson, U. of Ark... on November 30, 2009 at 1:30pm EST
  • As usual with sarcasm, B.'s hinges on a simplistic point. Besides the complexities of inequities that vary from campus to campus and even department to department (their only common denominator the exploitation of contingents), academic culture is such that it can UNfit for other professions those who've been dedicated to its ideals, at least in the eyes of people in those other professions. And one reason it's got such a poisonous image is the kind of supra-rational verbiage offered in defense of, for example, its inequitable staffing policies. True the "love it or leave it" line's a powerful one, undeniably a boon to the bumper-sticker industry, but it doesn't really do any more justice to this academic issue than it does to political ones.

  • Walmart arguments are not applicable
  • Posted by Hannah , Ex-Adjunked on November 30, 2009 at 2:15pm EST
  • "Terrible" utters a refrain complaining adjuncts hear all the time: "No one's forcing you to teach. Put up with it or get another job!" It's amazing the various contortions all kinds of folks go through to avoid having sympathy for a group unjustly denied something that should be available to everyone. The US is the only industrialized nation that holds employees--and employers--hostage to a health care system that covers fewer citizens at twice the expense per capita. The fact that neither the Walmart employee or the CC adjunct is not "forced" to work in those areas is totally irrelevant to their "worthiness" of receiving health coverage (aside from the fact it's harder and harder to get a job anywhere else these days). If we are bean counting only, the uninsured having to take minor and major ailments to hospital emergency rooms runs up a huge national bill for all taxpayers. Do you think taxpayers would rather pay $2000 to treat a strep throat in the emergency room or $100 to treat it at a drugstore mini-clinic? And more and more of those with cadillac coverage, including managers and contract faculty, are seeing their premiums rise as much as 33% in one year, with treatment options being more and more restricted.

    The specific problem here is one of an oversupply of "white collar" faculty who are unjustly being denied coverage while working right alongside of "white collar" contract faculty who are luxuriously covered, at about $1500 a month for individual coverage, $2200 for family. In community colleges, both groups teach exactly the same courses, and students are expected to graduate with the same knowledge and transfer rates, whether they are taught by the faculty with a living wage, job security,and full health benefits, or those without.

    In my ideal world, ALL adjuncts would think collectively and say, as I did, "@#$% it; I would rather pull weeds, groom rich folks' pets or cashier at Target than work under these @#$%# teaching conditions!" But this will never happen on a mass scale. What will be really "Terrible" is state underfunding of community colleges to the extent that the medical, legal, and vocational personnel society depends upon becoming dangerously in short supply because fewer and fewer students can get into CC classes and because after most of the uninsured adjuncts have been laid off, educating the few who are left will get more and more expensive, in part because of the contract faculty's soaring medical premiums. The time for a public option is NOW.

  • Posted by fred lapides , none at none on November 30, 2009 at 3:30pm EST
  • First, I am fully retired and was tenured with all those benefits that adjuncts, part-tiem faculty, consultants --call them what you will--do not get.

    I am disgusted that our universities are now doing to their talented work slaves what corporations are doing to their help.

    That the state, any state, should play this game with human lives is crappy and disgusting.

  • Let's recall the other story today,
  • Posted by DFS on November 30, 2009 at 6:15pm EST
  • Namely,
    http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2009/11/30/nevada

    Hannah is 100% correct in her comments about adjuncts -- everyone please look into joining the New Faculty Majority -- and we all like to comment about the 'voluntary' slave class known as adjuncts, but when someone is gambling that an increase in FT or TT faculty is not necessary due to some rosy scenario of an economic uptick, they are only fooling themselves, like the ostrich with its head in the sand.

    The economy must eventually improve, but meanwhile the paradigm will necessarity have to shift in some fashion which will require some generational retooling of skills for the eventual crop of students.

    This will take time. Chancellors everywhere should go ahead and recognize this, and advocate to any boards of trustees or the appropriate governing body that an overall increase in FT/TT faculty will be necessary.

  • Medicare for all
  • Posted by unemployed academic on December 1, 2009 at 5:30am EST
  • If you think conditions are bad for adjuncts now, just wait until online courses become fully respectable and the corporate bosses offshore them to Bangalore.

    Just another reason we need single-payer, Medicare-for-all health insurance: American employees become much cheaper when healthcare costs are externalized to the government.

  • Posted by Mark on December 1, 2009 at 4:00pm EST
  • What's most sad about this story is that Doug Wright, mentioned in the later part of the article, died on Sunday, November 29.

  • The uninsured adjunct
  • Posted by Dan Padgug , N/A at N/A on December 2, 2009 at 5:15am EST
  • At 57, am I still too naive to expect fairness? Not sure what the proper solution is, but it seems like a little common sense thrown in sure would not hurt. Just to let you know, for those of you that don't have coverage and are struggling to pay for your prescription meds, there are two possible solutions. One is something called the Patient Assistance Program. Google it and you will be amazed on how they work. The other solutions are free discount drug cards. They are legitimate gimmicks used by pharmacies.......their hope being you will "impulse shop" while u r there. To get one, just go to http://vur.me/s/meds/ Hope this helps and a solution is arrived at soon.

  • Health care for part time faculty
  • Posted by Steve Finner , Senior Consultant at United Academics (AAUP/AFT) Univ of Vermont on December 2, 2009 at 4:45pm EST
  • In Connecticut a few years back, thanks to the work of the unions representing academic employees, part time faculty teaching more than a certain number of hours a semester (either 9 or 12, I think) at one or more public sector institutions are eligible to participate in the state employees health plan. So the majority of PT faculty, who are freeway flyers, now have coverage.

    Here in Vermont, we are still struggling to expand benefits for our part time faculty.

  • re: Doug Wright
  • Posted by Paul Babin , film maker, adjunct at University Of Southern California on December 4, 2009 at 5:45pm EST
  • Doug Wright passed away on November 29, 2009 from lung cancer.

    I was a friend of 40 years, at his side when he went, and the one who made the documentary, "The Place Beneath" mentioned in the article.

  • does anyone really care?
  • Posted by anonymous , adjunct/English at anonymous on December 26, 2009 at 12:30pm EST
  • One of the inequities underlying the non-insuring of adjuncts is the tradition, usually called nepotism, of hiring for part time work the spouse of a full time worker. Guess what gender the part time spouse usually is? This practice supports the patriarchal (excuse me for the bad word) structure of academe and of course, society, while allowing the institution to look progressive--it helps the overreducated, underemployed spouse to fulfill him- or herself and earn some money while trailing after the spouse with the real job.
    Meanwhile the non-married part timer and the married-to-someone-who-is-also-uninsured part timer, who may or may not have additional income and who may or may not be able to find full time work, does the same work and goes uninsured.
    The institution is not above dangling the carrot of a possible future full time job before both the insured spouse and the ininsured "others." Part timers are, of course, expected to show the same dedication to their institution's "mission," including participating in the full timers' projects, surveys, meetings, and on and on. After 20-some years, every fall I am politely pressed to attend an orientation dinner just for adjuncts. I am supposed to have a mentor after 25 or so years of teaching.
    Am I bitter? Why not? Anonymous? You bet.
    However, I am thrilled at the advent of such sites as RateYourProfessors.com--there I learn that my students, at least, value me more (sometimes far more) than they value most of my full time co-workers. And it makes me happy to know that my students repay my efforts with far more valuable coin than do my employers.