Adjuncts this fall

[mahagonny]

Not where I work. (And it seems pretty typical in Canada.) Pay per course is ~8k. Full course load for a prof is 5 courses. Given the typical teaching/research/service ratio of 40/40/20, that means the part-time pay would work out to a full-time equivalent salary of about $100k, which is reasonable. If benefits and pension were pro-rated, it would be right in line.

Guess what? The part-time union still claims part-timers are vastly underpaid. (Because they conveniently overlook the research and service obligations and pretend the full-time salary is only for teaching 5 courses.)

My take: when unions get too powerful, they attract more and more people whose primary interest is power. For instance one of my unions right now thinks they are within their rights to require each of us to read the works of Ibram Kendi, Robin D'Angelo and other race baiters, white guilt merchants and communists, all because America needs to believe in racial justice. Whereas old timers like me believed in racial justice, and also clearly understood this about ourselves, before most of these union officials and authors were born. And are also constitutionally protected with respect to the right to vote for any republican who's running in our district. However, this misuse of power that sometimes happens should not sour your view of all unions. Well, you have a right to your opinion on that, but we would disagree.

On the other hand even though I'm not dying to start attending lots of committee meetings, there are parts of this that I find dissatisfying. It can be frustrating to be completely uninvolved in decisions around the major and curriculum when you have to deal with the ramifications of those decisions.

So they're really doing the part time adjunct a favor by excluding him from meetings, because it would become more vividly seen that not only is he invisible in the meetings, he is invisible in the school. It would be just an hour of slow building nausea.
...and this is called the way things should work.

[Caracal]

So they're really doing the part time adjunct a favor by excluding him from meetings, because it would become more vividly seen that not only is he invisible in the meetings, he is invisible in the school. It would be just an hour of slow building nausea.
...and this is called the way things should work.

Oh, I wouldn't want to attend meetings as long as I'm being paid by the course. If I'm not being paid a salary, I'm not going to expand my job duties...

[mahagonny]

So they're really doing the part time adjunct a favor by excluding him from meetings, because it would become more vividly seen that not only is he invisible in the meetings, he is invisible in the school. It would be just an hour of slow building nausea.
...and this is called the way things should work.

Oh, I wouldn't want to attend meetings as long as I'm being paid by the course. If I'm not being paid a salary, I'm not going to expand my job duties...

Right, but my point about part time academic work is it's not private contracting. It's having a regular job where you are stigmatized.
Whereas a 'regular' employee gets periodic rewards of some kind (though they may be more often small, they exist) as length of service acknowledgement or incentives for staying, the adjuncts reward is the 'luxury' of keeping the employer at arm's length, whereas, he already knows by reading his contract and experiencing the culture ('we need more faculty governance! Not you I meant faculty) that the regular employer does not want a relationship.
The things that people identify as advantages of adjunct work are the same things that a private contractor would name. Except  the private contractor gets to write the invoice and he doesn't have to use your plans for how to get the job done. He brings his own. And he doesn't have to train away the racism living within his filthy white skin because it makes you feel good about yourself and attract more students.
some adjunct contracts actually make false claims of suggesting that the adjunct may be considered a private contractor,.

[marshwiggle]

Pay per course is ~8k. Full course load for a prof is 5 courses. Given the typical teaching/research/service ratio of 40/40/20, that means the part-time pay would work out to a full-time equivalent salary of about $100k, which is reasonable. If benefits and pension were pro-rated, it would be right in line.

Guess what? The part-time union still claims part-timers are vastly underpaid. (Because they conveniently overlook the research and service obligations and pretend the full-time salary is only for teaching 5 courses.)

Unfortunately, the only places that pay that kind of money in the US are institutions that hire very few adjuncts. Also important to remember that one of the main issues in the US is health insurance, which isn't a concern at all in Canada.

But that illustrates my point. Here, where health care isn't the issue, and salaries are higher, part-time unions make the same laments as in the US about how awful it is. Bottom line: unions complain and over-dramatise, as though the situation were dire, regardless of the reality.

(Advocating for pro-rated pension and benefits could be done on the basis of fairness, without having to pretend the sky is falling.)

[mahagonny]

Pay per course is ~8k. Full course load for a prof is 5 courses. Given the typical teaching/research/service ratio of 40/40/20, that means the part-time pay would work out to a full-time equivalent salary of about $100k, which is reasonable. If benefits and pension were pro-rated, it would be right in line.

Guess what? The part-time union still claims part-timers are vastly underpaid. (Because they conveniently overlook the research and service obligations and pretend the full-time salary is only for teaching 5 courses.)

Unfortunately, the only places that pay that kind of money in the US are institutions that hire very few adjuncts. Also important to remember that one of the main issues in the US is health insurance, which isn't a concern at all in Canada.

But that illustrates my point. Here, where health care isn't the issue, and salaries are higher, part-time unions make the same laments as in the US about how awful it is. Bottom line: unions complain and over-dramatise, as though the situation were dire, regardless of the reality.

(Advocating for pro-rated pension and benefits could be done on the basis of fairness, without having to pretend the sky is falling.)

And they get countered with intentionally insulting piss-poorly constructed rhetorical flourishes such as 'but adjuncts already have health insurance, so our offering it wouldn't help them' as has been our experience. Or simply 'adjuncts at this school will never get health insurance form us.' This from administrators who were elected to state senate positions as democrats
twenty years prior with contributions from unions.
How I become a republican. By trying to be a democrat without laughing and crying at the same time.
What higher ed really needs to do is get rid of the serial liars and corruption.

[Durchlässigkeitsbeiwert]

But that illustrates my point. Here, where health care isn't the issue, and salaries are higher, part-time unions make the same laments as in the US about how awful it is. Bottom line: unions complain and over-dramatise, as though the situation were dire, regardless of the reality.

Or it merely highlights the degree of the American social and cultural domination.

[mahagonny]

But that illustrates my point. Here, where health care isn't the issue, and salaries are higher, part-time unions make the same laments as in the US about how awful it is. Bottom line: unions complain and over-dramatise, as though the situation were dire, regardless of the reality.

Or it merely highlights the degree of the American social and cultural domination.

...and Americans don't even play Rugby.

https://www.nbcolympics.com/news/canadian-brazilian-rugby-players-kneel-demonstration-match