When Should/Can An Adjunct Speak Out?

[Hibush]

The union won't save jobs that go away as the contingency conditions are met.  Just ask the folks at CUNY: https://www.gothamgazette.com/state/9905-cuny-leaders-pressed-layoffs-adjuncts-professors-city-council

The ability to lay off NTT faculty when finances get tough is one of the most attractive features of the job category to the administration. An adjunct union may get the employer to pay more, provide nice offices, and lots of freedom to speak out about whatever is on their mind. But they won't ever get long-term job security, i.e. "save jobs". A five-year renewable contract is the best I've ever heard of, and that was a principal investigator at a medical college. If they stop getting grants, they are out of a job.

[mahagonny]

Five, seven year contracts, at maximum, to replace the tenure system as it exists today, envisioned.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/michaeltnietzel/2020/12/06/three-alternatives-to-faculty-tenure/?sh=5fb523cae292

on edit: Not only will a union not get you real job security, it will not get you freedom to speak your mind either, and it may even say things claiming to represent you that you don't agree with, on political and social issues. But administration already does that too, claiming all of us have always had health insurance and plenty of other income, or whatever they calculate will be effective to turn sympathy away from adjunct faculty. So who do you want to align with? The union will wins, because they'll get you more pay.

[Caracal]

The union won't save jobs that go away as the contingency conditions are met.  Just ask the folks at CUNY: https://www.gothamgazette.com/state/9905-cuny-leaders-pressed-layoffs-adjuncts-professors-city-council

The ability to lay off NTT faculty when finances get tough is one of the most attractive features of the job category to the administration. An adjunct union may get the employer to pay more, provide nice offices, and lots of freedom to speak out about whatever is on their mind. But they won't ever get long-term job security, i.e. "save jobs". A five-year renewable contract is the best I've ever heard of, and that was a principal investigator at a medical college. If they stop getting grants, they are out of a job.

That's true enough, but renewable contracts, even ones for only a year or two, would be a big improvement. Paying by the course is fine if somebody  is legitimately only filling a short term or occasional need. It isn't a good system when you're dealing with more or less permanent needs if you care about teaching or faculty engagement.

[fishbrains]

(1) What is best for the thing I'm leading and how does that articulate with the bigger picture?  Few underlings know the big enough picture that their suggestions should be blindly adopted.

Truth.

In nearly any setting.

[Hibush]

The union won't save jobs that go away as the contingency conditions are met.  Just ask the folks at CUNY: https://www.gothamgazette.com/state/9905-cuny-leaders-pressed-layoffs-adjuncts-professors-city-council

The ability to lay off NTT faculty when finances get tough is one of the most attractive features of the job category to the administration. An adjunct union may get the employer to pay more, provide nice offices, and lots of freedom to speak out about whatever is on their mind. But they won't ever get long-term job security, i.e. "save jobs". A five-year renewable contract is the best I've ever heard of, and that was a principal investigator at a medical college. If they stop getting grants, they are out of a job.

That's true enough, but renewable contracts, even ones for only a year or two, would be a big improvement. Paying by the course is fine if somebody  is legitimately only filling a short term or occasional need. It isn't a good system when you're dealing with more or less permanent needs if you care about teaching or faculty engagement.

Using temporary supports to hold up permanent infrastructure is never a good system. The risk of collapse is substantial. The cost of collapse is usually much greater than the cost of permanent supports, but that's not the arithmetic used by those providing the funds.

[mahagonny]

The union won't save jobs that go away as the contingency conditions are met.  Just ask the folks at CUNY: https://www.gothamgazette.com/state/9905-cuny-leaders-pressed-layoffs-adjuncts-professors-city-council

The ability to lay off NTT faculty when finances get tough is one of the most attractive features of the job category to the administration. An adjunct union may get the employer to pay more, provide nice offices, and lots of freedom to speak out about whatever is on their mind. But they won't ever get long-term job security, i.e. "save jobs". A five-year renewable contract is the best I've ever heard of, and that was a principal investigator at a medical college. If they stop getting grants, they are out of a job.

That's true enough, but renewable contracts, even ones for only a year or two, would be a big improvement. Paying by the course is fine if somebody  is legitimately only filling a short term or occasional need. It isn't a good system when you're dealing with more or less permanent needs if you care about teaching or faculty engagement.

Using temporary supports to hold up permanent infrastructure is never a good system. The risk of collapse is substantial. The cost of collapse is usually much greater than the cost of permanent supports, but that's not the arithmetic used by those providing the funds.

While a bad system collapsing is a good thing.