|
The Elephant
It is good that the Guild has
recently had some spirited internal discussion about the load banking
system for full-timers and how it might be changed.
It is also
good that the recent presentation of data comparing our full-timer
salary schedule with neighboring districts has sparked interest in
raising those portions of the schedule that fared poorly. However, as
we have been generating heat and light on these issues I feel that we
have been overlooking the dead elephant in the living room, as they
say. That elephant of course is the serious inequities between how our
full-time and part-time members are treated here at the college.
For starters, note that adjunct faculty at GCC often are not provided
access to the supplies, telephones, departmental copy machines, office
(or at least storage) space, individual mailboxes, and clerical support
that we full-timers take for granted. They are not eligible for
sabbaticals nor load banking to manage their time here at the college.
Part-timers are also excluded from the various benefit programs the
college offers full-timers such as dental and vision coverage,
district-paid life insurance, and our PPO and Kaiser medical plans.
Many are also not allowed to buy in to our Blue Shield HMO plan, and
those who are must pay 100 percent of the premium, with a small portion
rebated to them later on. Since our administration will no longer kick
in money for this purpose, the rebate depends entirely on how much
Sacramento budgets for it, and in recent years it has only amounted to
15 - 20 percent of the premium the part-timer has to pay.
Wait—I'm just warming up. There is also the fact that in just about
every division adjuncts are lowest in the pecking order when it comes to
assigning work, meaning they are often stuck with the least desirable
options. But in the name of flexibility, even if their work has been
judged to exceed the professional standards we have established, they
haven't even been guaranteed any assignment at all from semester to
semester until recently. The new system of rehire rights only
guarantees those who qualify (it takes a new adjunct faculty member at
least three years to do so) a minimal assignment, and then only if there
is enough left for them after full-timers have had their pick.
Of course there is also the matter of how adjunct faculty are paid. To
focus matters, consider adjunct instructors in a discipline where the
load is 15, and presume (unrealistically) they were allowed to teach a
full load for the year (if they were allowed to do so for three
semesters out of any consecutive 6, the "60 percent law" would require
that we could no longer leave them as adjunct). Their pay, including
that for office hours, would fall in a range that is about $24,000 to
$35,000. A full-time instructor in the same discipline earns pay that
falls in a range of about $40,000 to $86,000. This disparity is in part
due to there being far fewer steps and columns on the adjunct salary
schedules (e.g., an adjunct with a Ph.D. gets no boost in pay, unlike a
full-timer), but even when looking at comparable steps and columns on
the full and part-time schedules, there is a large gap.
Now some will point out that the full-time instructor does do more
office hours for this pay (5 per week instead of 2), and is also
expected to take on a broader range of professional responsibilities
(attendance at faculty and division meetings, committee work, etc).
However, we all know of individual full-timers who do little to nothing
of this ancillary labor, and whose availability during scheduled office
hours is iffy. Even for those of us who do a lot of ancillary work, is
there any way one could argue that it justifies this large gap in pay?
Others will point out that our adjuncts can now get pay for whatever
ancillary work they do, but they should remember that this will amount
to a maximum of $1000 per year, and is only now becoming available. Is
there anything else that can justify the gross difference in pay? Some
will argue that more rigorous hiring processes, evaluations (especially
during the probationary years), and peer pressure lead the average
full-timer to do better work than the comparable part-timer. True or
not, we all know of individual part-timers who can run circles around
comparable full-timers, and even ignoring that one still has to wonder
just how large a gap in pay this could possibly justify.
Thus, I feel we are going to have to address this elephant in a more
serious way than we have in the past. While we worry that the low end
of the full-time salary schedule might be discouraging some good people
from applying, I think that our collective awe at Institute Day each
year when the new full-timers are introduced indicates that we are able
to attract excellent hires for these positions. However, our dismal pay
for adjuncts makes it hard to attract applicants, and division chairs
sometimes have to resort to "any warm body" hiring, which is bad for our
students and bad for our reputation. For the good of our institution,
we must start hacking away at this thing and dragging away its parts to
the dustbin of history.
As usual, let me close with some information about the benefits of
membership in our union. Part-timers in particular might be interested
in some medical discount plans available through the AFL-CIO's Union
Plus program (http://www.unionplus.org/benefits/health/savings.cfm),
especially if they don't have medical insurance. Also, the CFT has
announced its annual Raoul Teilhet Scholarships, which range from $1000
to $3000. See me for an application soon if you are a Guild member and
have a child or dependent who is a graduating high school senior, since
it must be completed and postmarked by Jan. 31 (the information can also
be downloaded from www.cft.org).
Lastly, at the beginning of spring semester, current students at GCC can
apply for our local Guild scholarship through our Scholarship Office, so
start thinking about students you would like to encourage to apply.
&
back to top
|
|
|