CUNY Adjuncts Refusing to Teach Spring 2020

[marshwiggle]

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.

Honest question: Would it be possible for a person to be supportive of a union, but reserved about the size of any gains that the union is likely to achieve? To me this seems entirely possible, but I get the feeling that some people expect unions to make great gains consistently.

[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.

Honest question: Would it be possible for a person to be supportive of a union, but reserved about the size of any gains that the union is likely to achieve? To me this seems entirely possible, but I get the feeling that some people expect unions to make great gains consistently.

Are you following the story? The adjunct faculty are protesting what the union agreed to. The union is there for the gain of the people in it who already have the good jobs.

[polly_mer]

I am a scientist at a national lab, so it's unclear what personal benefit I would get from not having academics unionize.

I will continue to point out unpleasant truths for those who can't look above their own experiences in the hopes that someone might benefit.  That's the teacher hat I keep wearing, even when I have no classroom.  I'm saying, "The union can't help enough in many of these situations, regardless of how pro-union the organizers are, so put energy and hopes elsewhere".  As I remember reading many places, part of a good education is to push people outside their comfort zones by pointing out the realities of the broader world.

A union can only work if:

a) enough people share the same 2-3 goals of the union
b) the overarching situation is such that those 2-3 goals are achievable within the resource constraints
c) a critical mass of someones with relevant organizational and political skills step up and do the work that might be able to achieve the goals

I'm not anti-union; I'm anti-people-wasting-their-time-on-things-that-can't-happen.  The CUNY case is interesting in large part because the union can't get what the members want, so a new leadership team is proposing going outside the ineffective union.

The question is then whether the union-in-all-but-name can get what they want by going directly to individual actions that might add up to collective pressure.  My bet is not because I strongly suspect that either the institution will consolidate/eliminate/restructure so that they need fewer part-timers or enough not-currently-part-timers-in-this-particular-system will look at the deal and individually say, eh, good enough so the army of part-timers is maintained with different individuals.

[ciao_yall]

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.

Polly_Mer has no power over you. She does not work with you. She does not have any decision-making power at your institution. She is not even an administrator in higher ed any more.

If you want to unionize, wouldn't you be better off putting that energy into getting real people who agree with you to get organized instead of shadow-boxing with some wall of text?

[Wahoo Redux]

I will continue to point out unpleasant truths for those who can't look above their own experiences in the hopes that someone might benefit. 

Polly, you would take so much less heat if you could just realize two essential things which are apparently hard for you to conceptualize, and to simply admit something that seems apparent to most posters already.

1) You do not have some sort of profound perspicacity.  Your apparent frustration (which we've discussed before) is based on the faulty notion that you are the only one who sees the inherent hopelessness of the "adjunct crisis," particularly on these boards.  People make choices.  At this point in time, virtually everyone in academia knows about the job situation.  They roll the dice.  Nevertheless, frustration is a valid response.   We could theoretically look at any industry in which workers are forced into protest and unionization and say, 'They should quit chasing rainbows.'  We could say this about the UAW now or British miners in the 1980s.

2) The problem is not just that people will not get the jobs they want, it is that this very damaging to academia overall.  I cannot think of any way around that one.  Which leads me to...

Just admit, Polly, that you would like to see the liberal arts turned into a volunteer organization for fun for the engineers. 

Ever heard of Marty Nemko?   You sound a little like him.

Then again, maybe you like the heat.

[polly_mer]

 "Already 15% of adjunct positions have been eliminated across CUNY for the spring semester. How many of us did they throw under the bus so the rest of us could get this totally inadequate raise?"

https://parkchestertimes.com/rank-and-file-call-upon-professional-staff-congress-psc-union-to-reject-weak-labor-contract

Graphical presentation of pay at https://mobile.twitter.com/cunystruggle/status/1190351943056662529

[mahagonny]

Polly_Mer has no power over you. She does not work with you. She does not have any decision-making power at your institution. She is not even an administrator in higher ed any more.

She's also lost some credibility in this fora life that we've had. Still, it may be worth pondering, if she says things other administrators believe but don't admit, we have a system that regards its workforce as an enemy. She obviously sees herself as duty bound to fight adjunct advocacy. At my university they've spent thousands on 'union avoidance' attorneys.
But I think you may have a good idea. I'll try to avoid Marty Nemko too. He sounds like a pill.

If you want to unionize, wouldn't you be better off putting that energy into getting real people who agree with you to get organized instead of shadow-boxing with some wall of text?

Honest question: Would it be possible for a person to be supportive of a union, but reserved about the size of any gains that the union is likely to achieve? To me this seems entirely possible, but I get the feeling that some people expect unions to make great gains consistently.

Well, how about letting the NYC adjuncts have the $7000, but we still recognize your above-averageness.

[polly_mer]

Honest question: Would it be possible for a person to be supportive of a union, but reserved about the size of any gains that the union is likely to achieve? To me this seems entirely possible, but I get the feeling that some people expect unions to make great gains consistently.

Well, how about letting the NYC adjuncts have the $7000, but we still recognize your above-averageness.

From where does the money come to more than double the minimum adjunct offer without changing any other aspects of the institution?

Teaching is the prime purpose at most CUNY campuses, but an institution that big (274k enrolled students according to Wikipedia) can't run with only teachers.  That population is more than twice the size of South Bend, Indiana and then one adds the almost 50k employees to bring the total number of individuals to three times the population of South Bend.

Classroom teaching and related prep/grading is only part of what is necessary to keep a university running.  One can be frustrated with bureaucracy and administration, but only the tiniest of the tiny college can run with only teachers and even then, we need most of the teachers to be full-time employees because of all the work that needs to be done that isn't classroom teaching.

[mahagonny]

Honest question: Would it be possible for a person to be supportive of a union, but reserved about the size of any gains that the union is likely to achieve? To me this seems entirely possible, but I get the feeling that some people expect unions to make great gains consistently.

Well, how about letting the NYC adjuncts have the $7000, but we still recognize your above-averageness.

From where does the money come to more than double the minimum adjunct offer without changing any other aspects of the institution?

Teaching is the prime purpose at most CUNY campuses, but an institution that big (274k enrolled students according to Wikipedia) can't run with only teachers.  That population is more than twice the size of South Bend, Indiana and then one adds the almost 50k employees to bring the total number of individuals to three times the population of South Bend.

Classroom teaching and related prep/grading is only part of what is necessary to keep a university running.  One can be frustrated with bureaucracy and administration, but only the tiniest of the tiny college can run with only teachers and even then, we need most of the teachers to be full-time employees because of all the work that needs to be done that isn't classroom teaching.

Actually, since it's the rogue adjunct faculty and not the union that is doing the protesting, this would be one time you and Marshwiggle should, logically, be grateful to the union for caving in to administrative intransigeance and stinginess.

I was alluding to what I suspect is Marshwiggle's real problem: he hates to see a union or other solidarity effort bear fruit for the participants who have not been able to capitalize on being fine teachers and therefore deservedly get thrown to experience the brunt of the market forces. And deserve the reputation of being average. Which in the adjunct world, of course, means bearing the stigma.

[marshwiggle]

Honest question: Would it be possible for a person to be supportive of a union, but reserved about the size of any gains that the union is likely to achieve? To me this seems entirely possible, but I get the feeling that some people expect unions to make great gains consistently.

Well, how about letting the NYC adjuncts have the $7000, but we still recognize your above-averageness.

From where does the money come to more than double the minimum adjunct offer without changing any other aspects of the institution?

Here's a prediction: Whatever pay increase ultimately happens, there will be a corresponding increase in average class size, since that really is the only viable option.

For those that don't like to do math, the point is that the cost per student can't really rise, since the institution's funding constraints aren't going to disappear. A smaller number of better paid positions is probably a good thing, but the higher pay will come with more work. Prep time is pretty constant, regardless of class size; grading and administration scale fairly linearly so there is some economy of scale.

For the people who think I'm wrong, bookmark this post and, by all means, come back and point out how I was wrong once the dust has settled on all of this.

[mahagonny]

Honest question: Would it be possible for a person to be supportive of a union, but reserved about the size of any gains that the union is likely to achieve? To me this seems entirely possible, but I get the feeling that some people expect unions to make great gains consistently.

Well, how about letting the NYC adjuncts have the $7000, but we still recognize your above-averageness.

From where does the money come to more than double the minimum adjunct offer without changing any other aspects of the institution?

Teaching is the prime purpose at most CUNY campuses, but an institution that big (274k enrolled students according to Wikipedia) can't run with only teachers.

thirty seconds of googling produces this: https://www.cuny.edu/about/administration/offices/hr/recruitment-diversity/people/

Since push is coming to shove can you explain how these full time benefitted positions need to be kept? It seems to be a certain term, 'administrative bloat' gets thrown around from time to time...but we are intent on showing that students aren't learning anything, aren't we? What do these 'inclusion' guys do that is essential?

[ciao_yall]

thirty seconds of googling produces this: https://www.cuny.edu/about/administration/offices/hr/recruitment-diversity/people/

Since push is coming to shove can you explain how these full time benefitted positions need to be kept? It seems to be a certain term, 'administrative bloat' gets thrown around from time to time...but we are intent on showing that students aren't learning anything, aren't we? What do these 'inclusion' guys do that is essential?

In our case, she manages a multimillion-dollar state grant that funds extra tutoring and counselors, plus supplemental financial aid such as book loans and transportation passes. They have to report and measure on the progress of these programs.

Well worth it, I think.

[marshwiggle]

thirty seconds of googling produces this: https://www.cuny.edu/about/administration/offices/hr/recruitment-diversity/people/

Since push is coming to shove can you explain how these full time benefitted positions need to be kept? It seems to be a certain term, 'administrative bloat' gets thrown around from time to time...but we are intent on showing that students aren't learning anything, aren't we? What do these 'inclusion' guys do that is essential?

So there are 6 staff listed. Let's say they make $50k apiece. Getting rid of them gives $300k. Since the demand of "$7K" basically doubles the existing pay, eliminating the whole diversity and inclusion office would only pay for raises for 100 adjuncts. Since 65% of faculty are adjuncts, and the university serves 500000 students, that would still come far short of the amount needed. (Anyone have a link to the total number of courses that are taught by adjuncts?)


I'm guessing you'd need to eliminate 10x that amount (or more) of positions to get the required funds. Other suggestions?

[tuxthepenguin]

From where does the money come to more than double the minimum adjunct offer without changing any other aspects of the institution?

This is a valid point. On the other hand, we can't take the elementary school approach of saying "Well, there are people willing to do the job for X, so that's what we'll pay." At a certain point those paying extremely high tuition (I'm talking universities in general) are going to wonder why the faculty teaching the classes are paid so little. Sure, you can make the argument that a university is about more than teaching, but that's what the folks paying the tuition are buying. If you just keep cutting down on quality until the only people teaching are the ones that can't get a job doing anything else, you won't have any students.

Just to be clear, since it seems nobody understands the point I'm making, this has nothing to do with paying a fair wage or asking poor college students to provide charity to someone with an Ivy League PhD. It's about providing value. You can't do that when you treat staffing decisions as a problem of minimizing the cost of putting a warm body in front of the class. That's not a sustainable business model when you're trying to get people to pay for the equivalent of a house.

See the AT&T "Just Okay" commercials. They do a really good job describing the scam colleges are pulling in their own staffing decisions.

[marshwiggle]

Just to be clear, since it seems nobody understands the point I'm making, this has nothing to do with paying a fair wage or asking poor college students to provide charity to someone with an Ivy League PhD. It's about providing value. You can't do that when you treat staffing decisions as a problem of minimizing the cost of putting a warm body in front of the class. That's not a sustainable business model when you're trying to get people to pay for the equivalent of a house.

See the AT&T "Just Okay" commercials. They do a really good job describing the scam colleges are pulling in their own staffing decisions.

I think I get your point and it's a good one. However, the sad reality is that there is little economic payoff to paying more. If an institution payed its part-time faculty 10% more, is it likely they'd see any measurable improvement in student outcomes? 20% more? 30% more? Since salaries and benefits make up something like 70% of the budget, it would require a huge increase in order to make any noticeable improvement in outcomes.

If you can figure out some way to make a 10% salary increase produce a measurable improvement in student outcomes, then the case for higher pay becomes much easier to make.