CHAPARRAL

Are All Legislative Bills Created Equal?

Part-timers should feel a surge of joy as they turn their attention to this year’s legislative docket. While we sometimes go for years without any proposed bills that benefit adjunct faculty, this year there are two major pieces of legislation. Both AB591 (Dymally) and AB1343 (Mendoza) could bring huge gains in pay, benefits and rights to part-timers, if the legislature and governor fund them. However, there are some serious differences between the two.
 
Bill AB591 was brought forth as a result of a strong state-wide (and indeed national) movement to pay part-time faculty prorata of the full-time salary scale in accordance with the percentage of the full workload that they do. The bill does away with the present work limitation of 60 percent of a full-timer’s teaching hours and instead considers any non-tenured faculty member that is teaching less than 100 percent to be a “temporary” employee. It also requires that any part-time faculty member working more than a 40 percent load be given medical benefits. This type of non-tenured but fully paid and benefited employee is similar to the CSU lecturer position.  The bill also requires that at least 50 percent of new full-time positions on a campus be filled with veteran part-timers already teaching at the college and requires statewide collective bargaining for all temporary employees not covered by a local union contract.  The bill asks that the state fund the additional cost of higher pay, benefits and administration with new money from the state coffers.

Bill AB1343, also known as the Faculty and College Excellence Act (FACE) advocates for similar gains for adjuncts in the areas of pay and benefits but it does not change the 60 percent limitation on work hours. It is somewhat weaker in its requirement for new full-time positions to be filled from the ranks of already hired adjuncts. It asks only that incumbent adjuncts receive “preferential consideration” in the full-time hiring process. The main thrust of this bill, however, is to realize the goals of AB 1725 (1988), which promised  that 75 percent of the hours of instruction at all community colleges be taught by full-time tenured (or tenure track) faculty.  AB 1725 has never been fully implemented, due to funding shortages.  If enacted, AB 1343 would require massive new funds for full-time tenure track positions.

     One needs to look closely at these two bills to decide whether to support one, both or neither of them. AB591 would have districts hire, without limitation, part-time faculty to teach almost as much as full-time tenure track faculty members at a pro rata pay rate. The argument in adjunct circles has always been that if part-time teachers are paid equally in salary and benefits to full-timers, then there would be no incentive for districts to hire these hourly employees. Instead, districts would opt for hiring full-time tenure track faculty who do much of the “extra” work of governance, senate, and other non-classroom tasks.

     At this time, few part-time faculty are involved in the multiple committee tasks that full-timers are expected to do, mostly because there is little or no compensation for these extra hours.  Many important decisions regarding academics, budget priorities, and curriculum are decided by these committees. When a non-tenure track worker sits on these committees, her opinion may be heard but if the district is opposed to this point of view or, worse yet feels threatened by it, the worker may be in jeopardy of losing her job. Only tenure allows a faculty member the security of being able to stand up for one’s opinion about campus and academic matters without somehow losing an assignment the next semester.

      A clear difference between AB 591 and AB 1343 is that AB 591 eliminates the  60 percent restriction on part-time teaching hours.  This restriction gravely injures many part-timers, particularly in the areas of foreign languages and some English and math specialties.  The 60 percent restriction basically requires almost all part time faculty to be “freeway flyers” if they wish to make a living teaching in community colleges. I would argue that a more reasonable percentage of 67 percent, or 2/3 of a full-timer's load, would help out part-time faculty while not really changing the present ratio or discouraging tenure track hiring.

    Although the two bills, AB591 and AB1343, provide an opportunity to call attention to the plight of part-timers and the need for more full-time teaching positions to be funded, neither one indicates where the revenue stream would come from to realize their lofty goals. However, the introduction of these two important pieces of legislation enables part timers and their advocates to inform legislators and the public about the damage that low pay, lack of benefits and the absence of job security does to the teaching profession and how it thwarts academic excellence in this state.

back to top