Admin! Speak up!

[mahagonny]

A case can be made for paying more to bring terrible results up to satisfactory (e.g., no one will teach the class, the student outcomes are unacceptable due to huge classes or unqualified warm bodies).

But if this is a common situation that has existed for some time, as some here suggest (while usually avoiding the crass terms that you delight in using), then only changing the dynamics of the system would bring a different result. So, as Humphrey Bogart said 'it's bad business to mention Paris.' It's bad business for you to mention this, because the the best hope for changing the dynamics would obviously be more unions. And a hard look at whether those who oppose even the idea of giving them a chance to work can be kept around. And as you know you are the preeminent example of that person.

[FishProf]

because the the best hope for changing the dynamics would obviously be more unions.

Because they would do.....what?  A union isn't a solution per se.  A union may be the best means to reach a particular solution.  But what is that solution?

[mahagonny]

because the the best hope for changing the dynamics would obviously be more unions.

Because they would do.....what?  A union isn't a solution per se.  A union may be the best means to reach a particular solution.  But what is that solution?

if they increase pay, which they generally do, the school has a bigger pool of interested people. Of course it's up to them to pick the better applicants. But why can't they? It's their job.

https://www.chronicle.com/article/Do-Unions-Help-Adjuncts-/243566

"Adjunct faculty won salary increases at every institution we looked at. A 2018 survey by the College and University Professional Association for Human Resources shows that U.S. faculty members this year are earning only 1.7 percent more than last year, a figure that is below the current rate of inflation. Unionized faculty have negotiated steady increases that are significantly higher, and some of the steepest gains have come from unions formed within the last few years."

For me one of the most depressing and frankly, dumb things to read on these fora is the claim that adjunct unions should not be tried because they don't 'solve' the adjunct situation. But that claim is made most loudly from people who wouldn't be in them anyway. It's not for them to decide what qualifies as a solution. It's arrogant nonsense (I don't mean you Fishprof)--- as though the adjuncts are not qualified to decide what's right for them or speak on their own behalf. That's part of understanding a person's legal right to pursue collective bargaining. If you don't respect the right, then just say so. Vote for Chris Christie. Be honest about where you're coming from.
In any case, absent 'solution' improvement is better than no improvement.

[FishProf]

So, mahagonny, are you explicitly referring to adjunct-only unions?  I ask b/c my union covers both, and our union has negotiated higher pay for both groups, but also has negotiated a cap on the % of classes  that can be offered in a semester taught by adjuncts.

That is, in principle, good for creating TT lines, not so good for current adjuncts (esp. those holding Master's credentials - they are ineligible for the new TT-lines).

[polly_mer]

Let's try another example to paint the big picture.

The faculty are the furniture in the house that is the university. 

In some cases, that furniture is indeed concerning with a couch that has boards replacing the springs, a leg that is propped up with a brick, and cushions that have seen such better days that even the fading afghan doesn't conceal the fact that one of those cushions is actually a plastic garbage bag filled with remnants of pillows.

However, a couch in that state is unlikely to be in a fabulous mansion that could afford all new living room furniture where the discussion of whether we want to replace the good enough couch with two recliners or a love seat and a bean bag chair or one of those new leather sectionals makes sense.

Instead, that clearly-in-need-of-attention couch tends to reside in the house with a leaky roof, an iffy floor due to termite activity, and is located such that tornadoes are likely, fires are likely, floods are likely, and one good mudslide means the whole thing crashes into the bottom of the valley.  There's reason to believe the slow plumbing is a result of tree roots getting into pipes and that backyard septic system is indicating signs it has reached its end of life.  It's unimportant to this example what academic problems (anything related to demographics, deferred maintenance, changing expectations for majors/college education outcomes, state underfunding, student loan regulations, online national market versus regional physical market) map exactly to which house problems.

What's important is that for people who are focused on having a house that is livable, replacing that couch cannot be top priority or even in the top five since the furniture will be destroyed when the ceiling caves in, the floor gives way, the house is rendered uninhabitable by plumbing issues, or a fire/flood/tornado/mud slide takes out the whole house.  Advocating for a newer afghan or fabulous throw pillows for the couch is going to be ignored in favor of figuring out where to put resources first for the roof, the floor, the plumbing, and mitigating the natural disasters.

When we're showing people the problems to ask for money for the roof etc., even if we point to the couch, the couch is still functional with perhaps a bucket for the leaks and replacing the heavy boards and bricks with more plastic-wrapped pillow innards in ways that plumbing is not.  Responsible adults cannot possibly have a serious discussion about replacing the couch with a leather sectional or two recliners when the house is in danger of being unlivable.  One can live OK in a solid house with minimal furniture if one is careful about how many people are being accommodated and the other choices for those people are to try to survive outside. 

Once the basic house is sound, it's pretty straightforward to get more furniture, although the trade-off is still likely to be good enough couch with an afghan over the back to protect it versus bean bag chairs versus recliners instead of all leather/glass, expensive top-end furniture.

Citing the AAUP statement is an interesting choice since it so clearly highlights a disconnect between what faculty claim they want (trading high pay for security of long-term contracts) for what's done in practice (faculty who will work for years at low pay with no guarantees of security).  Or, do you, mahagonny, want to make the case that somehow the death-marching adjuncts aren't men and women of ability who have other good options so there's no trade-off to be made?  That seems unlike you, but that's a logical conclusion based on the evidence we have.

[Wahoo Redux]

Polly, you are a little like Tolkien's Sauron: you keep coming back in a new form with each successive age.  In this age you have taken the form of 'the adjunct crisis is not an important problem in the big picture.'  Why not just come out and say whatever it is that generates this disdain and fascination even after you have left academe instead of trying to persuade the good peeps here that you have some sort of rational reasoning on the subject?

[mahagonny]

So, mahagonny, are you explicitly referring to adjunct-only unions?  I ask b/c my union covers both, and our union has negotiated higher pay for both groups, but also has negotiated a cap on the % of classes  that can be offered in a semester taught by adjuncts.

That is, in principle, good for creating TT lines, not so good for current adjuncts (esp. those holding Master's credentials - they are ineligible for the new TT-lines).

Well, I'd have to see more information to know whether I would join that union or abstain. I might be able to live with for example too courses per term at $5000 each as opposed to three at $3600 each.
In any case, the presence of people like Polly_Mer on a campus or in a discussion means you're going to hear someone pretending that they have some special knowledge that unions for adjuncts cannot possibly be an intelligent choice for those faculty because they don't 'solve' the problems that they wake up to every day. Whereas we all know that often enough half a loaf is better than none and many problems we have in life never get fully solved, but with work and a little luck, they become manageable and bearable. and of course we all know administrators who dread unions, because they mean things will cost more, and have a well enough capacity for self-adulation that they are able to articulate reasons there shouldn't be union that ostensibly have the worker's interests in mind. And actually appear to believe it. Or it's a veiled intimidation attempt.
I have mixed feelings about tenure, too. What tenure purports to provide is a way to carefully select your coworker for the next thirty or twenty years based on his reasonable, down-to-earth temperament. Yet you find senior faculty who hate each other's guts but can't leave because they've invested too much in the place. It's not uncommon. But I suppose that's another discussion. And as regards tenure's relationship to the teaching workforce in general, as one forumite put it 'tenure is the tyrant that supports nothing but itself.'

Polly, you are a little like Tolkien's Sauron: you keep coming back in a new form with each successive age.  In this age you have taken the form of 'the adjunct crisis is not an important problem in the big picture.'  Why not just come out and say whatever it is that generates this disdain and fascination even after you have left academe instead of trying to persuade the good peeps here that you have some sort of rational reasoning on the subject?

Perhaps it's nostalgic for her to think back to the days when she could go into work every day and pass people in that hallway that she likes to hate.

[marshwiggle]

because the the best hope for changing the dynamics would obviously be more unions.

Because they would do.....what?  A union isn't a solution per se.  A union may be the best means to reach a particular solution.  But what is that solution?

if they increase pay, which they generally do, the school has a bigger pool of interested people. Of course it's up to them to pick the better applicants. But why can't they? It's their job.

https://www.chronicle.com/article/Do-Unions-Help-Adjuncts-/243566

Here's an interesting section from that article:

Why has it been so difficult for adjunct unions to gain these three measures? To some extent, the failure stems from the bargaining process itself. Before starting negotiations, unions survey members to determine their highest priorities. The highest priorities, such as increasing salaries and benefits, have the support of nearly all members. In contrast, when members are divided in opinion about a specific issue, it is difficult to mobilize the faculty during collective bargaining.

Take the issue of increasing the number of full-time positions on campus. Although most part-time faculty want to work full time, many others do not. In fact, some part-time faculty may view an increase in the proportion of full-time positions as against their interests, because any such increase would likely diminish the amount of part-time work available. Collective bargaining alone is not likely to stanch the increasing reliance on part-time faculty on American campuses.

To answer FishProf's question; once it gets past "more pay and better benefits", the "ideal solution" is unclear, and probably even non-existent.

[mahagonny]

If one goes by reading the forum or the old CHE forum, unions haven't provided a solution for tenure track faculty either. They think they should be paid more.

Some adjuncts I've talked with didn't want to get the administrators angry by signing on for a union and feared retribution. I might have felt that way once, but when I was approached I answered 'hell yeah.' I guess with age you take more risks. Your kids have grown, you've had a lot of good life already, and you feel like giving back to the community.

[marshwiggle]

If one goes by reading the forum or the old CHE forum, unions haven't provided a solution for tenure track faculty either. They think they should be paid more.

Some adjuncts I've talked with didn't want to get the administrators angry by signing on for a union and feared retribution. I might have felt that way once, but when I was approached I answered 'hell yeah.' I guess with age you take more risks. Your kids have grown, you've had a lot of good life already, and you feel like giving back to the community.

Maybe I've been misunderstanding you. I keep asking what the endgame is you're aiming for, but it just now occurred to me that your point is that a union is the best way to move forward regardless of what the endgame is. Would that be correct? 

[mahagonny]

If one goes by reading the forum or the old CHE forum, unions haven't provided a solution for tenure track faculty either. They think they should be paid more.

Some adjuncts I've talked with didn't want to get the administrators angry by signing on for a union and feared retribution. I might have felt that way once, but when I was approached I answered 'hell yeah.' I guess with age you take more risks. Your kids have grown, you've had a lot of good life already, and you feel like giving back to the community.

Maybe I've been misunderstanding you. I keep asking what the endgame is you're aiming for, but it just now occurred to me that your point is that a union is the best way to move forward regardless of what the endgame is. Would that be correct?

Congratulations. The endgame is tomorrow holding more hope that today does. Everyone who contributes to the success of higher education having a voice and a little clout. In my opinion, an end to the only way the adjunct can get improvement in the job being by establishing himself as 'an adjunct who's not like most adjuncts.' There's nothing wrong with most adjuncts. It's unhealthy having a stigmatized population. There's something wrong with getting rich off of a mess like what we have.
What they prioritize after getting together and talking and having the administration recognize them is something is something they have to figure out.
Having a union that consists of some who hope to get full time and some who do not does not make perfect sense, but not having a union at all makes even less sense.
There's no reason 'part time/full time' dichotomy has to persist. Particularly where health insurance benefits are tied to employment, it's a made to order opportunity for management to divide and conquer.

[Wahoo Redux]

If one goes by reading the forum or the old CHE forum, unions haven't provided a solution for tenure track faculty either. They think they should be paid more.

Some adjuncts I've talked with didn't want to get the administrators angry by signing on for a union and feared retribution. I might have felt that way once, but when I was approached I answered 'hell yeah.' I guess with age you take more risks. Your kids have grown, you've had a lot of good life already, and you feel like giving back to the community.

We have worked at a non-union school and a union school.  I have been adjunct and FT at both.  My spouse has gotten tenure at both.

The union school is far, far better in every regard.

I cannot imagine how the adjunct army would do worse with a union, but I don't see that the state of adjunct employment will change radically even with a union.  As long as there is an adjunct-army things will not go well for most adjuncts.

[mahagonny]

If one goes by reading the forum or the old CHE forum, unions haven't provided a solution for tenure track faculty either. They think they should be paid more.

Some adjuncts I've talked with didn't want to get the administrators angry by signing on for a union and feared retribution. I might have felt that way once, but when I was approached I answered 'hell yeah.' I guess with age you take more risks. Your kids have grown, you've had a lot of good life already, and you feel like giving back to the community.

We have worked at a non-union school and a union school.  I have been adjunct and FT at both.  My spouse has gotten tenure at both.

The union school is far, far better in every regard.

You've mentioned in your opinion, from your observing, that adjunct faculty vary widely in ability, all the way down to downright terrible. I haven't seen much of this at all. Our adjunct faculty are OK, pretty good all the way up to outstanding. How does that come to be tolerated? I find this shocking. Is it simply allowed to continue and then used as ammunition to deny adjuncts any pay raises?
When an incompetent person is hired, he may be at fault or he may not. He may not completely know what the job is or figure that since he was hired he's qualified enough. He may have had no real interview or orientation session. Or he may be a willful slacker. Whereas the person who hired him knows, or should know, that something is amiss, and has been paid a lot more, and has the honor and distinction of being a permanent part of the school. Yet can do no better than this?

Citing the AAUP statement is an interesting choice since it so clearly highlights a disconnect between what faculty claim they want (trading high pay for security of long-term contracts) for what's done in practice (faculty who will work for years at low pay with no guarantees of security).  Or, do you, mahagonny, want to make the case that somehow the death-marching adjuncts aren't men and women of ability who have other good options so there's no trade-off to be made?  That seems unlike you, but that's a logical conclusion based on the evidence we have.

No, I would make the case that where there are extremely low paid and no job security or advancement jobs being used regularly, such as at the school you and your Provost Bob worked, one may also find administrators harboring the more virulent, scornful attitude towards the workforce and feeling no compunction about offering jobs that they openly regard as a -rope-a-dope scheme. With amusement. Much of this impression is the result of reading these fora. And that the disconnect between that level of functioning and the type of relationship described in the statement from the venerable AAUP is vast.
The statement on academic freedom and tenure mentions the need for economic security. I don't see anything there about trading high pay for security of long term contracts. Did I miss it? The trade-off part is what tenure track faculty say about themselves. The full prof tenured people in my field would never have that kind of salary anywhere in the same field. They're smart and accomplished, but they're not rare. I suspect you could get them for less.

I cannot imagine how the adjunct army would do worse with a union, but I don't see that the state of adjunct employment will change radically even with a union.  As long as there is an adjunct-army things will not go well for most adjuncts.

Schools are spending a lot on attorneys in the hopes of avoiding adjunct unionizing.

[marshwiggle]

The endgame is tomorrow holding more hope that today does. Everyone who contributes to the success of higher education having a voice and a little clout.

If we view the situation of poorly-paid and overworked part-time faculty like  a public health problem, then there are 3 levels at which it must be addressed:

• individual- for public health, this means treating individuals who are ill; for academia it means getting better pay and benefits for workers at a given institution
• prevention-vaccination protects individuals, and also provides herd immunity to others; for academia, this would be making grad students well aware of the situation, and preparing them for employment outside academia so they are not suceptible to exploitation. This provides herd immunity by reducing the pool of exploitable workers, which helps everyone.
  As Wahoo said:
  

  
  I cannot imagine how the adjunct army would do worse with a union, but I don't see that the state of adjunct employment will change radically even with a union.  As long as there is an adjunct-army things will not go well for most adjuncts.
  

• health policy-regulations regarding clean water, food preparation, etc. prevent the spread of disease. Working for legislation like pro-rated benefits would reduce pressure to break up full-time positions to save on benefits and healthcare. (The American health care situation is truly odd; why does a person's basic health coverage depend on employment???? But I digress......)
  

I'm interested much more in the latter two levels of this issue, largely because they are not institution-specific.

[Caracal]

Let's try another example to paint the big picture.

The faculty are the furniture in the house that is the university. 

This is a pretty astonishing and revealing claim. Teaching isn't at the core of institutions of higher learning? I'd always assumed that the point of requiring students to pass classes and get a certain number of credits to graduate was based on the idea that you wanted them to take classes and learn things under the direction of professors, but I guess who those people are and whether they do a good job is just a tertiary detail? Do classes and degrees just exist so colleges can get the tuition dollars that allow them to replace the water heater in the Student Union?