So adjuncts have zero right?

[hamburger]

Many years ago I tried to reform my institution's adjunct hiring policy to more closely conform to Department of Labor's rules about how many hours one could work before they were entitled to get benefits. Big Urban College had been either abusing the rules by granting "temporary waivers" to overload the adjuncts into teaching full-time loads without full-time benefits, or abusing the rules by changing our internal definitions of what constituted a "work hour" for any given class. In some cases, we'd have adjuncts teaching 9+ courses per semester and still be classified as part-time and receive no benefits.

It was toxic and unfair to adjuncts, but the adjuncts themselves were the biggest advocates for it. It was sweat-shop economics, pure and simple. And so long that enough adjuncts pushed for our institution to mistreat them and maintain the status quo for just a little more money, many in our institution's administration were perfectly willing to keep the sweatshop running and jigger the bookkeeping to keep us just within labor and accreditation requirements.

Whatever political pressures and strategies were used in the past to end child labor, set 40-hour work weeks, grant benefits to full-time workers, etc... is sorely needed in U.S. Higher Education. Until we get those reforms, adjunct labor at many institutions will continue to operate as sweatshops and the workers treated similarly as disposable.

Obviously you had bad people in positions of power. You can't blame adjuncts so much for not standing up to them if the tenure track didn't. You see evidence of this on the internet. One or two real jackasses have their run of the place and the permanent faculty act all innocent...'what's to be done about the adjunct situation? My my.'
Although we stand up to them. Maybe we're just nucking futs.

In this particular instance, I can point the finger at a single adjunct as the root cause for derailing the reform plan. Our chancellor had provisionally agreed to the proposals to stop overloading adjuncts to full time loads with no benefits. This made some adjuncts angry because even though they were treated like cattle, they were still getting an extra pittance of money for teaching extra courses.

One adjunct got so mad about not being able to keep his improper overloads, that he went over everybody's heads and talked to the chancellor about how "unfair" the situation was.

After that one meeting with the angry adjunct, our chancellor abruptly cancelled the labor reform plan. Overload caps were going to continue to not be enforced. Not only that, but the chancellor decided that "part-time" maximum course loads for adjuncts were now bumped up by another 25%, pushing us right to the very edge of maximum for what classified part-time workers under the (new at the time) Affordable Care Act guidelines.

And so now, the system that we have for our adjuncts is even worse than it was before. Many of them are working well over full-time teaching loads every single semester, and none of them are getting benefits, and none of them are performing any of the duties required for full-time faculty. The inequity gap has widened.

One angry adjunct created all that in one meeting. Again, sweatshop economics. If you're only scraping by because your employer is abusing you, you're not going to want to change that system and risk losing your extra pay, no matter how poorly you're treated.

If we really want more equity in Higher Ed, I doubt that we're going to get it from bottom-up local initiatives. It will require strong regulation and enforcement at the federal level. Sure, some states and some institutions treat part-time workers much better and much more correctly, but many other states and institutions do not.

I guess that is why my CC has been hiring people from the Business schools rather than academics to be administrators. These people know how to play around to cut cost. Before the arrival of a new department head, we had hoped that she would create more full-time positions but instead, she made all advertised positions part-time. Part-time positions are not good because they do not come with any benefit nor union membership. To be fair, she is quite good at managing a department in STEM. She just does not want to create full-time positions nor against those entitled students. Like the previous department head, she just accommodates those students to avoid formal complaints.

[mahagonny]

If we really want more equity in Higher Ed, I doubt that we're going to get it from bottom-up local initiatives. It will require strong regulation and enforcement at the federal level. Sure, some states and some institutions treat part-time workers much better and much more correctly, but many other states and institutions do not.

My guess:
Making adjunct labor cost more rocks the boat, and anyone who runs anything other than a union would easily prefer to avoid that by doing nothing.
Tenure track would love for adjunct unions to give up the fight. They say they hate adjunctification. It's a red herring. You don't have to love something to be addicted to it.
Legislation is more of a dead end. Try getting past senators who get votes from worshipping at the altar of Robin D'Angelo, Ibram Xendi and other academic heavy hitters. Academic tenure is their political gold mine.
Legislators could conceivably act to strengthen union protections and rights, but they won't be doing it out of concern for the adjunct situation.

[fourhats]

Before the arrival of a new department head, we had hoped that she would create more full-time positions but instead, she made all advertised positions part-time.

Isn't it possible that this was a directive from the dean or provost? Not all chairs have the power to create full-time positions on their own, especially in a cost-cutting environment, where benefits can add up to a third of the cost of hire.

[hamburger]

My CC terminated my email account and all free software cannot be used. Does it cost that much for them to keep my account and access to software for at least one more semester? So no contract for one semester and I lost everything. I think it was not like that before. How about other adjuncts?

[hamburger]

Before the arrival of a new department head, we had hoped that she would create more full-time positions but instead, she made all advertised positions part-time.

Isn't it possible that this was a directive from the dean or provost? Not all chairs have the power to create full-time positions on their own, especially in a cost-cutting environment, where benefits can add up to a third of the cost of hire.

From that I heard from a very reliable source, department heads have absolute power in hiring. However, senior colleagues said that the former head could eat the sh*t of the dean and did whatever the Dean wanted, no question asked. That is why she got hired in this STEM department even she was just an ESL teacher. Senior colleagues told me that under her, complaining to get higher marks became a culture of the department.

[lightning]

My CC terminated my email account and all free software cannot be used. Does it cost that much for them to keep my account and access to software for at least one more semester? So no contract for one semester and I lost everything. I think it was not like that before. How about other adjuncts?

You're free at last. Go fly.

[Cheerful]

My CC terminated my email account and all free software cannot be used. Does it cost that much for them to keep my account and access to software for at least one more semester? So no contract for one semester and I lost everything. I think it was not like that before. How about other adjuncts?

You're free at last. Go fly.

Yes, the universe may be doing you a favor.  New day, new life.

[hamburger]

Administrator told me that if the enrollment gets better next semester, she would hire me again... I don't think it is going to get better in January.
Union said I am completely out of the system and suggested me to get a lawyer to file a formal complaint against the college. I don't see there is any point doing that.

So just forget about this place and spend some money to buy software? I can afford Microsoft Office but Matlab, Adobe software, etc. are expensive.

Do I need an academic affiliation to submit papers to journals?

[mahagonny]

Administrator told me that if the enrollment gets better next semester, she would hire me again... I don't think it is going to get better in January.
Union said I am completely out of the system and suggested me to get a lawyer to file a formal complaint against the college. I don't see there is any point doing that.

So just forget about this place and spend some money to buy software? I can afford Microsoft Office but Matlab, Adobe software, etc. are expensive.

Don't forget to write it off your tax.

[Cheerful]

Do I need an academic affiliation to submit papers to journals?

The five stages of grief:

denial
anger
bargaining
depression
acceptance

No more journal articles.  Proceed to acceptance. New day, new life!

[Ruralguy]

No, you do not need an affiliation to submit to a journal. I've seen a few people without  affiliation do this. I think some were career aerospace engineers and in their golden years decided they wanted to write about black holes. Of course, the physics has to be good, but if a paper passes the general relevance and quality test, it will be passed on for review. Of course, YMMV in your field.

[Ruralguy]

I think some chairs or heads can decide who to hire for a position without consulting a higher authority, but I doubt very many can just magic tenure lines out of thin air.  Also, there are ultimately constraints on funds allocated for lines.

[Cheerful]

No, you do not need an affiliation to submit to a journal. I've seen a few people without  affiliation do this. I think some were career aerospace engineers and in their golden years decided they wanted to write about black holes. Of course, the physics has to be good, but if a paper passes the general relevance and quality test, it will be passed on for review. Of course, YMMV in your field.

I said "no more journal articles" because it seems that focusing on such would be a waste of hamburger's time.  Huge opportunity costs.  He should focus on New Day, New Life.

[Kron3007]

No, you do not need an affiliation to submit to a journal. I've seen a few people without  affiliation do this. I think some were career aerospace engineers and in their golden years decided they wanted to write about black holes. Of course, the physics has to be good, but if a paper passes the general relevance and quality test, it will be passed on for review. Of course, YMMV in your field.

I said "no more journal articles" because it seems that focusing on such would be a waste of hamburger's time.  Huge opportunity costs.  He should focus on New Day, New Life.

I would have to agree.  Publications are really only of use for a sliver of jobs and one or two would likely not make or break this case.

There is a lot of demand for machine learning.  If I were in this position I would probably t try to start a company.  Whether this is consulting or developing proprietary software would depend on a number of things, but I see demand for this expertise and it seems it could be done remotely.  Since hamburger is not mobile and the odds of finding a specialized job like this in a limited area is slim, creating a job may be a better direction.

Of course, this option is not for everyone...

[hamburger]

No, you do not need an affiliation to submit to a journal. I've seen a few people without  affiliation do this. I think some were career aerospace engineers and in their golden years decided they wanted to write about black holes. Of course, the physics has to be good, but if a paper passes the general relevance and quality test, it will be passed on for review. Of course, YMMV in your field.

I said "no more journal articles" because it seems that focusing on such would be a waste of hamburger's time.  Huge opportunity costs.  He should focus on New Day, New Life.

I would have to agree.  Publications are really only of use for a sliver of jobs and one or two would likely not make or break this case.

There is a lot of demand for machine learning.  If I were in this position I would probably t try to start a company.  Whether this is consulting or developing proprietary software would depend on a number of things, but I see demand for this expertise and it seems it could be done remotely.  Since hamburger is not mobile and the odds of finding a specialized job like this in a limited area is slim, creating a job may be a better direction.

Of course, this option is not for everyone...

How do people who have no background in ML nor research experience got funding to form startups?  Those people got support but not me.