CUNY Adjuncts Refusing to Teach Spring 2020

[mahagonny]

So CUNY is looking for spring '20 adjuncts?  How much do they pay, and can I teach online?  I have always wanted to be a scab.

The complaints are regarding a minimum of $3222/three-credit course with a 2% raise per year for the next few years.

The goal by the loudest voices is to make that $3222 become $7000. 

$3,222 is thirty percent more than adjuncts make at my place, and we have far more willing adjuncts than we have courses to assign.  One could argue, in fact, that we've set the price of labor at a higher rate than the market demands.  My guess is that CUNY has, too, and though that argument won't mean anything to the adjuncts, it explains why they will lose.

When we taught in small-farm-town upper-cold-state uni they sometimes couldn't find qualified adjuncts and actually had to hire people with phys-ed masters degrees to teach a gen ed or two.  I cannot imagine that is the case anywhere in New York.

Well, the dean or provost who is interested in that number -- the smallest amount possible for getting that position staffed, deserves strikes and poor teaching. So just once I'd like to hear them tell the students 'you deserve bad teaching and strikes.'

[polly_mer]

Well, the dean or provost who is interested in that number -- the smallest amount possible for getting that position staffed, deserves strikes and poor teaching. So just once I'd like to hear them tell the students 'you deserve bad teaching and strikes.'

Why do you assume that low pay necessarily means poor teaching?  People who are stringing together 6-10 sections and skimping on prep and grading to do so are indeed ripping off the students.

People who can afford to teach for very little for whatever reason may be fabulous teachers, just as good as anyone who is full-time.  Again, people who aren't trying to earn a living by being an adjunct, but are making a little extra money or teaching mostly for the joy of teaching since their bills are otherwise covered are not in the same boat as the warm bodies death marching on classes that few students want to take, no one cares about quality, and yet somehow those courses are still on the books as requirements.

In addition, the poorly-paid, adjunct-heavy institutions are mostly community colleges that are running on a shoestring.  The dean/provost/whomever probably can look the legislators in the eye and state, either fund us enough to do the job right or continue to let our most struggling citizens be undersupported in this area as well.

CUNY City College tuition is $6,530 per year for in-state residents. This is 7% cheaper than the national average public four year tuition of $7,056. The cost is 70% cheaper than the average New York tuition of $22,120 for 4 year colleges. Tuition ranks 13th in New York amongst 4 year colleges for affordability and is the 173rd most expensive 4 year college in the state. If attending from out-of-state, the tuition is $13,920 which represents a 113% premium.

The school charges an additional fees of $410 in addition to tuition bringing the total effective in-state tuition to $6,940.

source: https://www.collegecalc.org/colleges/new-york/cuny-city-college/

Nobody is getting rich at CUNY by using adjuncts instead of full-timers with benefits.

[mahagonny]

Well, the dean or provost who is interested in that number -- the smallest amount possible for getting that position staffed, deserves strikes and poor teaching. So just once I'd like to hear them tell the students 'you deserve bad teaching and strikes.'

Why do you assume that low pay necessarily means poor teaching?  People who are stringing together 6-10 sections and skimping on prep and grading to do so are indeed ripping off the students.

I don't assume it means poor teaching in all cases. I posit that the student does his business with the college and pays what the college requires, which tends to be pretty good money, so he deserves good teaching. Whereas the administrator who thinks like, apparently, you do, wants to know what the smallest amount of money is that will enable him to staff that position, doesn't deserve good morale.

People who are stringing together 6-10 sections and skimping on prep and grading to do so are indeed ripping off the students...
People who can afford to teach for very little for whatever reason may be fabulous teachers, just as good as anyone who is full-time.  Again, people who aren't trying to earn a living by being an adjunct, but are making a little extra money or teaching mostly for the joy of teaching since their bills are otherwise covered are not in the same boat as the warm bodies death marching on classes that few students want to take, no one cares about quality, and yet somehow those courses are still on the books as requirements.

How about people who are skimping on prep and grading because they

1. Have a full time job in addition to the adjunct job, want the extra money, are tired of teaching,  have in mind to take advantage of slippage in expectations, but always have nice things to say about adjunct work.
2. Are retired and flush, want a little more stimulation in their lives, but certainly aren't going to work up a sweat over it. They also have a lot of nice things to say about adjunct work and are indifferent to unions and activism.

How about people who are not skimping on grading and prep because they teach at three different schools for a living, are worried about students reporting class cancellations, lack of organization, etc. and so put a lot of energy into the work. But they also join unions and might be giving administrators hard time with the media.

With your repetitious generalizing about types of adjuncts you purport to know everyone's level of motivation by a random, small number of external signifiers. If you really want to delve into this:  http://thefora.org/index.php?topic=698.0

Your real interest is obviously in keeping the option of very low pay/no job security with no repercussions. Your sorting of adjuncts into good adjunct vs. bad adjunct groups is flawed and probably according to how easy it is for you to exploit and neglect them.

[polly_mer]

I posit that the student does his business with the college and pays what the college requires, which tends to be pretty good money, so he deserves good teaching. Whereas the administrator who thinks like, apparently, you do, wants to know what the smallest amount of money is that will enable him to staff that position, doesn't deserve good morale.

Once more through the statistics:

Elite institutions where someone is paying excellent money for excellent education tend to not have armies of underpaid adjuncts.For example. Columbia University five years ago had a base adjunct pay of $5k/course with some folks making $15k for the one course they are allowed to teach since Columbia University is hiring professional fellows who have other jobs. 

After unionization, Barnard College pays adjuncts a minimum of $7k per course that is going up to $10k over the course of the contract along with some benefits.  Barnard is also the poster child for consolidating many stable part-time jobs into far fewer full-time jobs with the result of adjuncts losing their positions.  Barnard has also recently been in the news for not following the adjunct union contracts.  I would bet folding money that Barnard will continue to try to consolidate positions and eliminate the need for adjuncts to avoid those headaches.

In contrast, at the community colleges where adjunct faculty are the majority and students may be paying nothing out of pocket towards tuition, the median pay is $2700 per three-credit course.  Since median means "half are below", that means a fair number of people are making less than that $2700.

In short, the people who are paying pretty good money for instruction tend to get instructors who are paid pretty good money.  Places that are bargain prices tend to be hit or miss on whether those bargain instructors are truly a bargain.

[mahagonny]

After unionization, Barnard College pays adjuncts a minimum of $7k per course that is going up to $10k over the course of the contract along with some benefits.  Barnard is also the poster child for consolidating many stable part-time jobs into far fewer full-time jobs with the result of adjuncts losing their positions.  Barnard has also recently been in the news for not following the adjunct union contracts.  I would bet folding money that Barnard will continue to try to consolidate positions and eliminate the need for adjuncts to avoid those headaches.

You win. If I smoke 30 cigarettes today but only 28 tomorrow, I can go around saying I'm trying to quit, and people will listen to me politely, particularly the ones who have learned to ignore.

[polly_mer]

https://7korstrike.org/contract-faq/

Budget cuts: Hundreds of courses are already being eliminated or overenrolled across CUNY. That saves money on raises and makes the contract math work out, but it screws adjuncts and students

[polly_mer]

https://www.nydailynews.com/opinion/ny-oped-whats-wrong-with-cunys-contract-20191101-23staahcnzbrzb2wys2ynf7kq4-story.html?outputType=amp&__twitter_impression=true

[mahagonny]

Do something constructive Polly. Why don't you write to the editor and explain that there is no merit in making poor life choices, and teaching in college needs to be understood as one of them.

[polly_mer]

That's not what I believe. 

I'm still watching to see whether people will actually hold out for professional wages and what happens when the money can't be found to continue to pretend to go through the motions of education that no one wants.

[mahagonny]

That's not what I believe. 

I'm still watching to see whether people will actually hold out for professional wages and what happens when the money can't be found to continue to pretend to go through the motions of education that no one wants.

I taught a whole bunch of students this week who would have something to say to you in rebuttal.

[polly_mer]

Assigning people to be the villains based on how you want to interpret their beliefs is not the same as people having those beliefs.

Being a college teacher is fine as long as one is good with the terms of employment or volunteerness.

A poor life choice is needing more money/status/something, being in a position where those needs are not met, and staying in that position while doing nothing to fix it.

A better life choice is figuring out how to meet one's needs while acknowledging that the only behavior one can control is one's own.

In my world, professionals don't worry about being fired for stating what they need to accomplish the work.  Indeed, professionals walk quickly away from situations where the job can't be done with the resources provided.

Professionals feel an internal obligation to do what's right in terms of accomplishing the job instead of taking the money and whining about how things ought to be different.

Responsible adults make the trade-offs to meet their family responsibilities in terms of money and time.  Children pitch a fit and insist that the unicorn that farts rainbows should magically appear.  Responsible adults decide what hill is worth dying on and then do the hard work of trying to change the world through actions that could meet the goals instead of waiting for the fairy to come by and grant wishes.

I have sympathy for those who end up caught in the system, but that sympathy quickly turns to annoyance for those who wish for change instead of working for change.  I have respect for the people who are leading the "7k or strike" fight against their own union.  I have empathy for the union and university who are constrained by reality.  I really do want to see what happens because it's not clear who will change the world and yet something will happen.

[mahagonny]

Assigning people to be the villains based on how you want to interpret their beliefs is not the same as people having those beliefs.

Being a college teacher is fine as long as one is good with the terms of employment or volunteerness.

A poor life choice is needing more money/status/something, being in a position where those needs are not met, and staying in that position while doing nothing to fix it.

A better life choice is figuring out how to meet one's needs while acknowledging that the only behavior one can control is one's own.

In my world, professionals don't worry about being fired for stating what they need to accomplish the work.  Indeed, professionals walk quickly away from situations where the job can't be done with the resources provided.

Professionals feel an internal obligation to do what's right in terms of accomplishing the job instead of taking the money and whining about how things ought to be different.

Responsible adults make the trade-offs to meet their family responsibilities in terms of money and time.  Children pitch a fit and insist that the unicorn that farts rainbows should magically appear.  Responsible adults decide what hill is worth dying on and then do the hard work of trying to change the world through actions that could meet the goals instead of waiting for the fairy to come by and grant wishes.

I have sympathy for those who end up caught in the system, but that sympathy quickly turns to annoyance for those who wish for change instead of working for change.  I have respect for the people who are leading the "7k or strike" fight against their own union.  I have empathy for the union and university who are constrained by reality.  I really do want to see what happens because it's not clear who will change the world and yet something will happen.

Put a sock in it polly_mer. You have off-the-charts arrogance, as noted by another poster. In addition, a generalized antipathy for faculty, as noted by at least two on the previous forum. And a bit of dishonesty, as I have noticed quite a bit. Not worth conversing with. and here's where I worry a bit -- I think your writing on this forum indicates mania. I hope you get help.

[mahagonny]

I have sympathy for those who end up caught in the system, but that sympathy quickly turns to annoyance for those who wish for change instead of working for change.  I have respect for the people who are leading the "7k or strike" fight against their own union.  I have empathy for the union and university who are constrained by reality.  I really do want to see what happens because it's not clear who will change the world and yet something will happen.

Do you actually think people reading here don't remember that if those faculty had been listening to people like you there would be no union? Un-frickin-believable.

[ciao_yall]

I think your writing on this forum indicates mania. I hope you get help.

Pot? Kettle?

[mahagonny]

I think your writing on this forum indicates mania. I hope you get help.

Pot? Kettle?

Fair enough, ciao. I have my share of faults and a history of mental/emotional health issues. Aside from personalities though, what this thread shows vividly is that an administrator like Polly_Mer who has in mind to try to harangue adjunct faculty into rejecting the unionizing or activism options cannot put their cards on the table. That is, they cannot admit their pitch amounts either (a) a veiled threat of retaliation in the workplace, after having informed you of their displeasure in what you are considering, (b) an appeal to readers to feel annoyed that someone is asking for a better deal on the mere basis that it is deserved, because these ( a & b) are unendearing sentiments and tactics. So a poster like Polly_Mer  has taken the option of objecting to adjunct unionizing on the basis that it isn't likely to succeed. Doing this enables the administrator to pose as the adjunct's sympathizer and ally. Except this bluff ultimately fails because (1) no one believes it because the truth is it's about money and (2) once it appears that activism might stand a chance of working, the administrator then has to pretend to have respect the effort, since the basis of not having respect was that that effort would have been futile. And no one will believe that either, because they have been ridiculing and regarding the faculty as an adversary.