Image by Andy Quezada.
The exploitation of part-time faculty, adjuncts, lecturers, etc. in higher education, in which many have difficulties supporting themselves and their families is scandalous.[1]
In many colleges across the country, there could be two equally qualified and experienced people teaching the same class with the same number of students (paying a similar amount in tuition whose grade is treated the same on their transcript) being paid significantly different amounts of money. The much lower paid teacher works part-time or is an adjunct, while the other is a tenured full-time faculty member. While these differences have been acknowledged and criticized for many years, little to nothing has been done by union leaders who are seen by many part-timers as predominantly favoring the needs and interests of the full-time faculty over those of dues paying part-time faculty.[2]
For many decades, in numerous California Bay Area community colleges, over 30,000 California community college part-time instructors have endured a lack of job security, being paid much less for doing similar work to full-time “colleagues,” and receiving either no benefits or benefits whose value is much less per class taught than what is provided to full-time tenured faculty.
Recently, I wrote a resolution that calls for all local union bargaining units to demand equal pay per class taught for all faculty similarly qualified and experienced.[3] I sent off the resolution to my local AFT 2121 union officers at City College of San Francisco requesting that it be submitted for consideration by the upcoming convention of the California Federation of Teachers (CFT).[4]
I shared the passage on page 40 of the February 2018 CFT Policies and Positions Handbook that indicates at 4.3.7 that “The California Federation of Teachers supports: …Equal pay for equal work among contingent and tenure-track faculty.”
My local union’s own Sunshine Document, that was crafted for the last round of negotiations, declares at 1E the position of seeking to “Achieve a one-tiered contract with equality in pay, benefits, and strengthened job security for all faculty and all assignment types.”
I made clear that the goal of this resolution would obviously not be achieved by reducing the pay of full-time faculty, and that it would not provide for a fully equal pay package per class taught since the benefits of part-timers would remain inferior to those of full-timers. It would just constitute a step towards equality.
After waiting five days beyond the day I was told I would be informed about my union’s executive board decision on whether to submit the resolution to the CFT convention, I sent an email asking what had been decided. They decided unanimously to oppose submitting the resolution.
My union president wrote that while the officers generally support the concept of “pay parity,” they “had several unstated questions and concerns about the resolution.” She let me know they could have amended my resolution, which would have been how they could have addressed their “questions and concerns,” but they did not bother to do so.[5]
By voting against the resolution, my union’s local leadership could be seen as demonstrating support for the continuation of our two-tier contract with its gross inequality in pay packages between part-time and full-time faculty.
The leaders of AFT 2121 presumably see themselves as progressive and on the side of social justice. Yet, they decided to continue to uphold unfairness towards the lowest paid and most vulnerable members they represent and work with by acting contrary to what would reasonably be expected from the words in their own documents calling for equal pay; words that placate and are pleasing to part-time faculty, but, by their actions, are rendered meaningless.
NOTES
[1] See “New ‘Army of Temps’ Report Shows Nation’s Adjunct Faculty Remain Underpaid, Underappreciated” at https://www.aft.org/press-release/new-army-temps-report-shows-nations-adjunct-faculty-remain-underpaid-underappreciated excerpt: “The AFT’s latest “Army of Temps” report, the third in a series, documents the troubling reality faced by millions of professional educators and illustrates how adjuncts struggle with low pay, inadequate access to benefits, little or no job security, and a lack of professional respect.”
[2] This issue has been discussed in many places such as in articles on the site of the California Part-Time Faculty Association.
[3] Text of resolution
Whereas, a basic principle of democracy is equality,
Whereas, many fights for justice that we support, including the civil rights movement, the gay liberation movement, and the women’s movement, are fights against discrimination and for equal treatment,
Whereas, a college receives the same level of funding whether a class is taught by a full-time or part-time faculty member,
Whereas, the grade a student receives is treated the same whether a class is taught by a full-time or part-time faculty member,
Therefore, be it resolved that we, the California Federation of Teachers, favor and will demand in all local contract negotiations that equally qualified and experienced teachers be paid the same amount of money per class taught whether that teacher is a full-time or part-time faculty member.
[4] Pay for part-timers at CCSF is among the highest in the country, but far from being equal with that of full-time faculty. For more details see my article. The AFT 2121 recent contract settlement resulted in an across-the-board percentage increase in pay. It provides more money per class taught by higher paid faculty members than those lower paid, mainly part-time faculty members, resulting in greater inequality in pay between them.
[5] I wrote back asking for clarification about their “questions and concerns,” but as typically happens, have not received a reply. A further objection to the resolution was, according to my union president, “that the full membership did not have an opportunity to weigh in on it”—something that rarely happens when they make decisions. Given that they had eight full days to decide the fate of my resolution and meet the submission deadline, they could have sent out a notice and ask for member input. Additionally, as officers elected by members, they supposedly represent the views of the membership.
