One of the most troubling characteristics of capitalism today has been increasing economic inequality. One of the many factors causing it has been the decline of organized labor. Fewer workers are organized in unions and many of those unions that exist are problematic.
One might expect that local teacher union leaders who work in a public college would not advocate in contract negotiations positions that allow for growing economic inequality within their own ranks, especially one located in a city regarded as progressive. Unfortunately, that is not the case with my own union at City College of San Francisco (CCSF), the American Federation of Teachers Local 2121 (AFT 2121).
Faculty in community colleges throughout California fall into two categories, full-time faculty who gain tenure after a few years, and part-time (also called contingent or adjunct) faculty who generally have no guarantee of a job or a similar work assignment following each school term.
As is true of most, if not all unions representing higher education faculty in the United States, faculty at CCSF have a two-tier contract. In California’s community colleges, the majority of the faculty work part-time. When teaching the same class as a tenured full-time faculty member, job insecure part-time faculty receive lower wages for the work they do and inferior or no benefits.(1)
My union leadership will express support for and embrace equality, social justice and democracy. They even recently passed a resolution with the title “Resolution in Support of Ending the Two-Tier System Within the California Community Colleges.” Whereas sections included “AFT 2121 believes that equality is a basic principle of democracy” and indicated that their Sunshine Document for union contract talks in 2023 had the stated goal: “Achieve a one-tiered contract with equality in pay, benefits, and strengthened job security for all faculty and all assignment types.” The resolved section indicates that “we, AFT 2121, favor that equally qualified and experienced faculty be paid the same amount for the same work”
However, the most recent contract the leaders approved and the negotiating position they are proposing for our next contract represents an acceptance for doing the opposite of what is stated in the resolution. Under both, the salary schedule moves away from paying “equally qualified and experienced faculty…the same amount for the same work,” and has or will result in increasing the economic inequality between the highest paid faculty and those paid the smallest amount, part-timers. Additionally, the difference in the level of pay between the highest paid full-time faculty and the lower paid full-time faculty also increases.
Pay at CCSF is based on two factors. 1. the level of one’s education which determines one’s column placement resulting in those who are more highly educated being paid more than the less educated, and 2. a step system determined by how long one has worked at the college with a move up a step generally resulting in a higher rate of pay. One example of our pay inequality is that a full-time faculty member moves up a step each year one works at the college while a part-time member must work two years before moving up a step.
The most recent negotiated and ratified contract that covered the three school years 2023-2024 through 2025-2026 resulted in a pay increase of 9% for the first year, 3% in the second year and 2% in the third year. These were certainly increases that benefited all workers keeping their jobs. However, the problem is with the unfair and unequal results that disproportionately favored the higher paid faculty, fostering greater economic inequality among faculty.
For the school year, 2022-2023, on which the pay increase was based, a newly hired full-time faculty member with a master’s degree placed on column F + 15 was paid $68,570. One in the same column beginning a tenth year was paid $92,600, $24,030 more. In 2025-2026, the difference in pay for these two spots came to $27,518.
Full-time pay vs. Part-time
For the school year, 2022-2023, a newly hired full-time faculty member with a master’s degree placed on column F + 15 was paid $6,857 for teaching a three-unit class. By contrast, a newly hired part-time faculty member just as experienced and qualified was paid $5,897, $960 less, for teaching the same class.
Three years later, for school year 2025-2026, the newly hired full-time faculty member was paid $7,852 for teaching a three-unit class while the newly hired part-timer made $6,753, increasing the difference in their pay from $960 to $1,099.
A part-time faculty member who was starting a tenth year at the college in 2025-2026 was paid less, $7,805 per three-unit class, than the newly hired full-time faculty member placed in the same column and teaching the same class. Full-timers starting their tenth year were paid $10,604, $2,752 more than a part-timer also beginning year ten.
The justification given for not having equal pay for equally qualified and experienced faculty with the only difference being that one is a full-timer, and the other is a part-timer is that full-time faculty, unlike part-time faculty, have greater responsibilities beyond teaching such as committee work. However, many part-time faculty do this work for free, and the extra work some full-time faculty take on can be questionable and minimal. Additionally, the full-time faculty greater job security and the value of their superior benefits should be viewed as payment for the extra work obligation.
My Effort to Equalize Pay
More than a year ago, I asked my union to pass a resolution I wrote calling for making a demand in negotiations for equal pay for equal work for equally qualified and experienced faculty.
To my surprise, the leaders put the resolution on the agenda for more than one meeting. Few people attend union meetings held over Zoom, generally less than 30 in a faculty of some 900 members. The leadership did what they needed to do to see that the resolution was defeated. Aside from a silly contention that the resolution was anti-democratic, the only argument for opposing this resolution was the claim that making such a demand would tie the hands of negotiators even though it was put forward as an item to be negotiated over, not as a non-negotiable demand. I wrote about what transpired that one can read here.
Current Contract Negotiations
A new three-year contract is currently being negotiated. The initial proposal put forth by the administration called for a pay increase of 2% in the first year, 2026-2027, and 0% in the next two years. The union leaders properly characterized this proposal as “paltry” and “a slap in the face to most [not all?] faculty.” AFT 2121 leaders claim that “the purchasing power of CCSF faculty wages is currently only 83% of what it was in 2007 due to our wages not keeping up with inflation.” To partly make up for this decline in purchasing power, they put forth an across-the-board pay proposal with an increase of 15.28% in the first year, 4% in the second year and 2% in the third year.
This regressive proposal, if enacted, would foster greater economic inequality. How is the union leader’s pay proposal regressive? After three years, one currently being paid $100,000, will be paid $122,800, while one making $40,000 would have pay that increases to $49,120. The differences in their pay increases from $60,000 to $73,680. This inequality is even greater if one includes pay going up due to step increases. If a union principle is to seek to achieve more in negotiations for its most vulnerable and lowest paid members, my union proposes to do the exact opposite, help to give rise to greater economic inequality between the lowest paid faculty and the highest paid faculty.
The unfairness is also illustrated in the pay per class example already discussed. Under the contract, the inequality grows the longer one works at the college. In school year 2025-2026, a part-time teacher placed on column F+15 entering year ten makes $2,752 less per three-unit class taught than a full-timer entering year ten. Under the union proposal, after three years with step increases, the part-timer would be paid $10,230 for teaching a three-unit class while the full-timer would be paid $14,148. The differences in their pay for this one class would go from $2,752 to $3,918. Were the part-time teacher paid the same per class as the full-time teacher, and teaching the maximum of six classes allowed under the law, this person would be making almost $24,000 more for the year.
In a recent update, my union leaders informed us that the administration is now offering a pay increase of 4% in the first year and 2% each of the subsequent two years. The union reduced the size of its regressive wage demand to 13.31% in the first year, 3.06% in the second, and 3.31% for the third year.
CCSF Part-Timers Level of Pay
The pay of part-time faculty at CCSF is much higher than most other colleges. This can be used as an excuse for not advocating that it be higher. However, this higher pay is more a reflection of how poorly part-time faculty are paid elsewhere, and should not be used to divert attention away from the unfairness and inequality of pay at CCSF.
What could be done?
Simply and obviously, to reduce inequality in pay, a progressive pay increase providing the lowest paid faculty with the biggest percentage pay increase and the higher paid with the smallest percent pay increase without sacrificing anyone’s job should be what is demanded in negotiations.(2) To move all faculty toward equality in pay would include having a step increase system in which all faculty move up a step each year, not just full-time faculty. Additionally, each column and step has a cell specifying a dollar amount. Currently, the cell of a part-timer teacher is 86% of that of a full-time teacher. Equal pay for equal work of equally qualified and experienced faculty would be accomplished by making the cell amounts the same for part-time and full-time faculty.
For the above to more likely happen, part-time faculty need to be organized to fight for their interests not just against the administration/management, but also in opposition to a union leadership that acts to bring about greater inequality between its members.
NOTES
(1) Among the benefits received by full-time faculty not available to part-time faculty are paid sabbaticals, a life insurance policy, and medical coverage when they retire. Additionally, they will receive bigger pensions because of their higher earnings.
Currently, full-time faculty are required to enroll in the CALSTRS defined benefit pension plan. The employer’s contribution to their pension is 19.1% of one’s gross pay. Informed part-time faculty have the option of enrolling in this plan, but many choose not to because of a higher deduction from their pay of over 10% that they can’t afford and/or because of a vesting requirement being the equivalent of 5 years of full-time work, something that could take them over a decade to reach and that may never happen due to their precarious job situation.
An alternative plan choice for part-time faculty is to either enroll in social security or the CALSTRS Cash Balance Plan. The deduction from their pay is either 6.2% for social security or 4% (that could be negotiated to a higher level) for the Cash Balance Plan, and the employer contribution is the same amount as the pay deduction. At my college, part-time faculty not in the Defined Benefit Plan requiring the 19.1% employer match receive none of the money saved from their smaller employer match to cover their plan.
(2) In late October, I sent an email to the leaders of my union explaining why their pay proposal is regressive and unfair. No reply has been received. Most of the leaders tend to be more senior full-time faculty members and higher up on the pay schedule.
