Setting the Record Straight: A Response to a Critic

Anyone who reads this blog knows that I am a fan of working together and have advocated more than once that we focus on common goals rather than in-fighting.  However, I don't think that means we shouldn't have discourse and disagreement.  I also don't think that means that inaccurate assertions should stand without comment.  And to that end, a recent op-ed in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer lists a litany of charges against the faculty unions in Washington State that require some comment and correction.

First, the author of the article accuses the unions not only of not fairly representing their part-time faculty members, but even worse, targeting them for discrimination.  Furthermore, the unions have apparently colluded to keep part-time faculty in unions with the full-time faculty so they can control them as their supervisors.  To ensure that part-time faculty remain powerless, unions have failed to bargain job security and other protections for part-time faculty.  Finally, unions, specifically AFT Washington, have introduced legislation that does not help part-time faculty but rather focuses on creating new full-time faculty lines without consideration for ensuring part-time faculty move into full-time positions or protecting against loss of part-time positions.

These are very, very serious charges--some of which would have legal implications if true.  They are particularly significant since they were made in a major media outlet, which will have an impact on not only how unions are perceived with particular regard to their positions on part-time faculty, but also on the ability of those unions to advocate on behalf of part-time faculty.  This is unfortunate since the charges are, in fact, not true.  Let's take a close look at the claims.

1.  Unions are not fairly representing part-time faculty.  I assume this means that unions are not bargaining for part-time faculty, lobbying for them at the legislature, or including them in the governance of the union.

Regarding bargaining.  This will be the hardest issue to address since bargaining is a locally driven activity and even in a post of this length there is not room to discuss the dozens of contracts that cover part-time faculty in Wasington State.  However, as you can see here, AFT Washington has both provided guidance and examples of key areas for bargaining on part-time faculty issues. This guidance and examples are similar to the policy statements and reports released by AFT and bargained by unions around the country. I will discuss the specific charge about bargaining job security below.

Regarding legislative advocacy.  Well, I am not going to reinvent the wheel, but simply ask that you click here to see an inventory of years of legislative advocacy for part-time faculty by AFT Washington.  One could argue that the legislative program hasn't focused on the right issues (and that would be an argument), but to suggest that this union is not advocating for part-time faculty is simply untrue and it is irresponsible to suggest so in a public forum with no evidence to support the claim. 

Regarding governance.  Including contingent faculty in the running of the union is critical to ensuring that part-time faculty issues are addressed by the union, and AFT Washington works hard to be inclusive.  A quick poll of the AFT Washington Executive Board members would find a host of part-time faculty, including the VP of COPE (political action), VP for 4-year colleges and universities, VP for Legal Defense, VP at large, etc.  You would also find part-time faculty representation at AFT Washington locals such as the Seattle CC Federation of Teachers and, in fact, the president of the local union that represents the author of the critical op-ed is a part-time faculty member himself--FACE Talk's own Phil Jack.

2.  Unions worked to keep part-time faculty in joint part-time/full-time unions to control them even though they are de-facto supervisors.

I am not really sure how to respond to such a claim which strikes me as what I refer to as the "big labor narrative" where "The Union" flexes its muscle to achieve some corrupt political end.  Now, as a trade unionist, it is some kind of weird fantasy to imagine that unions can control labor boards, but the reality is labor boards are charged with negotiating between what employers and employees want.  In this instance they determined (and have recently redetermined as the faculty at the 4-year colleges in Washington have organized) that faculty were better served by being in the same union--all faculty. 

We happen to agree with that and would argue it in every instance if that were in our control, but it simply is not.  A simple sample of different states will shows that the labor laws about joint or separate units run the gamut from separate units enforced by regulation to case-by-case determinations to joint units being enforced by regulation. To assert that unions control labor board decisions is nothing short of absurd and to go further and imply that unions controlled a decision to disenfranchise a certain group of members is an extremely serious charge, particularly when unsubstantiated.

3.  Unions have failed to bargain job-security for part-time faculty.  Specifically, they haven't done what a pending bill would do, which is to "grant annual, renewable contracts to part-time professors who have taught at least 50 percent of full-time for three years."

According to the AFT Washington page on bargaining, several locals have "been successful at bargaining annual contracts for part-time faculty."  And, in fact, at some colleges such as Seattle CC, the union has bargained exactly the provision the author calls for.  According to Lynne Dodson, President of the union at Seattle CC:

After nine quarters (same as tenure time) at an average of 50%, part-time faculty are guaranteed their consistent workload (or at least 50%) and the right of first refusal as long as courses are offered (and not needed for a full-time workload).  If the dean thinks enough courses may not be available, s/he has to notify the faculty member, in writing, 30 days before the end of the quarter before. If the faculty member doesn’t get such a letter, s/he is completely guaranteed their workload.

It is certainly true that all part-time faculty don't have these protections, but that does not mean that a sweeping generalization such as the one made by the author is accurate.  Unions work to achieve gains over time and do not have unilateral authority to change working conditions, because as Dodson points out in her response to this editorial

The primary opposition to job security comes not from the unions (duh) but from the college presidents who prefer flexibility. The unions call this inefficient and exploitation, and consistently fight for more job security and higher pay for all faculty.

And, as Phil just pointed out, it helps no one when the boss is successful at getting union members to do their work for them.

4.  Unions have introduced legislation for more full-time faculty lines that will not provide part-time faculty with a path to full-time positions and does not protect part-time faculty against job loss.

First, we should point out that last year, AFT Washington introduced legislation (supported by Washington Education Association) that called for all of the provisions outlined in the AFT FACE Campaign.  This year's legislation reflects a scaled back effort given the budgetary cycles of the Washington legislature.  But to the assertion leveled by the op-ed author, I offer this language from the bill regarding plans that colleges are charged with for increasing the number of full-time faculty positions at their institutions:

In its plan,the college shall state how it intends to meet its goal by, but not limited to, creating new full-time tenure-track appointments, creating opportunities for adjunct faculty to attain full-time positions, and by converting classes or assignments left vacant by attrition, but not by discharging currently employed part-time or nontenure-track faculty.

Does this bill "earmark" full-time positions for current part-time faculty?  No. And we cannot imagine any legislature that would do that.  Does it create a path to full-time positions and protect against job loss for current part-time faculty?  Yes.  Is the assertion that the legislative efforts of the unions such as AFT Washington are being forwarded at the expense of part-time faculty accurate? Clearly not.

Now, whether you accept my arguments here or not, I simply do not see how one can assert that the accusations made about Washington state's faculty unions in this op-ed are accurate in the face of evidence.  Unfortunately, the damage is done.  The good efforts of the unions have been tarnished and to no benefit of part-time faculty.

I have tried to be as careful and respectful as possible here and stay to the arguments set forth and not the motives.  I only ask that readers do the same.  Articles such as this one only serve to divide, distract, and ultimately defeat activists and their genuine and sincere efforts. I can only hope that we will all think carefully before publishing such pieces that gain attention more for their sensationalism than their merit.

Comments

[Sandra Schroeder]

Craig,

From the members of AFT Washington thank you for this careful analysis and spirited defense of our work. We are fighting the good fight for FACE in our legislature as we speak, pouring hundreds of people hours into communications with legislators at every level and in every way we can. It was dispiriting to receive such an unwarranted attack from someone who has continually refused to work with us for positive change. But after a great Lobby Day yesterday and your article today, we have our momentum back. We are waiting anxiously today for the proposed legislative budget to be released so we can know whether our efforts are bearing fruit. More to come.

Sandra Schroeder
President
AFT Washington

[Doug Collins]

FACE has come under a lot of criticism, even in the pages of your own FACE blog. It's no wonder that many part-timers outside of your blog have organized to stop it. It's easy to explain to anyone how it disrupts and further marginalizes current PTers, despite the largely meaningless "protections" it offers.

Instead of wasting your time pressing for bad policies and fighting those who disagree with you, why not just start negotiating with the rank and file about creating a better strategy? It would not be hard to think of one.

[Craig Smith]

Doug--

You raise two points. Let me take the second one first.

FACE was and continues to be heavily vetted with the rank and file—in fact, you might even see this blog as a continuation of that so thanks for weighing in. The FACE campaign was discussed with our part-time advisory group, our full-time nontenure track advisory group, our graduate employees, at multiple national conferences and conventions and will continue to be. In addition, we have met with states and locals around the country and someone else will need to add the particulars, but I believe AFT Washington has been meeting with locals and groups in a similar fashion.

To your first point, you suggest it is easy to show how FACE disrupts and marginalizes current part-timers. I would actually be interested in hearing more about that. FACE calls for pay equity, health and retirement benefits and priority hiring for part-timers. It calls for no current part-time faculty to lose jobs because of the legislation, but for the shift to more full-time positions to happen over time through attrition. Furthermore, and this is often missed, it calls for a ratio of classes taught—it is not about numbers of people. So, the shift over time is not as great as many make it out to be. I confess that this all seems reasonable and workable, but clearly we don’t see eye to eye on this, so I look forward to your response.

[P.D. Lesko]

It's tough to bear a storm of criticism for work which one clearly feels is furthering an important and laudable goal. Such is the case with FACE, I think: Faculty excellence. Who doesn't want it?

Be that as it may, the AFT leaders in support of FACE have not answered the part-time faculty critics of FACE with any modicum of logic or even empathy. Securing funding for full-time posts--literally securing money for faculty who will, one presumes, be future AFT members, is a reasonable goal. However, "hoping" to secure the "promise" of preferential consideration for those same full-time posts on behalf of part-time faculty who are CURRENTLY AFT members is simply not an acceptable corollary. Oh, and introducing legislation doesn't count. Sorry. It's like a promise to encourage a friend of a friend to part-timers to the party. Part-time faculty who are criticizing FACE are looking for results, not empty promises of "preferential consideration" that we all know they'll never get, because national searches are the sine qua non in faculty hiring.

As for Sandra Schroeder's support of FACE, this is how she characterized the contribution of the thousands of part-time faculty whom she and her WFT represent in Washington State during her testimony to her state's legislators: "....With your help Washington could be the first [state] in the nation to take this step forward and to fight against the cheap-labor forces that have come near to undermining our system." Cheap labor forces. Nice.

The problem is this: AFT clearly sees FACE as an opportunity to improve the quality of higher education. It is an unprecedented opportunity, I think. The problem is that FACE needs to be TWO-FRONTED. On one front FACE pursues funding for more full-time faculty lines. (This is the easy sell.) On the second front, FACE secures funding for pro-rata pay, benefits and professional development funding for Ms. Schroeder's "cheap labor forces who are undermining the system." Otherwise, FACE is a two-faced initiative that leave out the majority of college faculty in America (the temporary faculty).

There is a reason "Show me the money" jumped from the movie "Jerry McGuire," and into the Zeitgeist. Representatives are expected to produce tangible results, not promises. I guarantee if the AFT rethinks FACE in such a way that the organization's thousands of temporary faculty get shown the money, the criticism will die down. Until then, I urge Keith Hoeller on in his quest to get his AFT to show him and his temporary faculty colleagues the money. They are, after all, the majority of the college faculty in America.

[Sandra Schroeder]

Ms. Lesko uses a quote from me to imply that I think of adjunct faculty themselves as undermining our system, therefore implying that I think little of them. Anyone who knows me well could refute that assertion, but I am unsure why Ms. Lesko wants to think that badly of me in the first place. By “cheap labor forces” I clearly meant those forces that drive businesses to push down the wages and benefits of all workers, both in this country and throughout the world. Surely all of us know by now that those forces are at work in the academy, that we are not immune to the damage that is being done. It is not the people who are serving in low-paying adjunct positions who are the problem. It is the fact that the academy keeps creating those positions and forcing people who want to teach to choose between cheap wages or not staying in the field.

Furthermore, Ms. Lesko seems to assume that Washington state has done nothing but introduce FACE and that we care only about full-time lines. AFT Washington has worked tirelessly since 1996 to secure better salaries for part-time faculty as Mr. Hoeller well knows. We were working on these issues long before there was a FACE to them. Since we started our work, part-time salaries in our two-year colleges have gone from an average of 40% of what a full-timer earns for teaching the same class to 60%. We still consider that just a step to our ultimate goal, but how many other states can say that?

The ONLY reason we are not asking for salary increases for part-time faculty this year is because we already have them. We have a two-year budget cycle, which started last year. Through the hard work of AFT Washington’s members we secured equity raises for both years. It is more than unjust to accuse the people involved in this work in Washington State of not showing our adjuncts the money.

Our FACE campaign, both last year and this, have brought many new faculty in these contingent positions to our legislative work . They clearly do not feel marginalized by FACE or by AFT Washington. This year we have been working tirelessly, day after day, to move HB 2528 forward in spite of incredible opposition—by our own administrations. We are not “hoping” to do it; we are doing it. If we don’t achieve some new small steps forward, it will not be for lack of hard work or the commitment of both full- and part-time faculty to this important endeavor.

[Phil Ray Jack]

I have to admit that I'm almost amazed by the claims we have not heard those who criticize FACE, that we have not responded to critics "with any modicum of logic or even empathy," or that AFT's support of FACE is motivated by money.

I say "almost amazed" because it is an old story that is replayed every year, and it has become painfully predictable.

I am the Chair of the AFT Washington Contingent Workers Committee, and we have met monthly to work on part-time faculty issues. For the last two years, most of our efforts have been working toward developing an approach to FACE suitable for our state.

If you believe that there hasn't been differences of opinion, you have never served on a committee comprised of well-informed and educated people. All of the concerns expressed by our critics were carefully weighed, and the result is a campaign we believe is fair, practical, and realistic.

The problem with many of our critics is they assume that if we haven't been convinced by their arguments, it's because we are ignoring them, yet they consistently ignore our responses.

Strong opinions do not change the facts, and the facts are that having a majority of classes taught by faculty who are overworked, underpaid, unappreciated, and unprotected is detrimental to education. The facts are that both full- and part-time faculty are impacted by the overuse and abuse of part-time faculty. The facts are that most full-time positions are filled by faculty who have teaching experience, which is another way of saying part-time faculty.

One competing bill that was introduced in the legislature called for part-time faculty to receive equal compensation for the work we do. Of course we support that. The bill also calls for part-time faculty to be able to teach a full-time load. Of course we support that, too, as long as they receive equal compensation and benefits. Of course, we support that, too.

We are simply saying that, if we are going to work a full-time load for full compensation, call us full-timers and give us the security of tenure.

Our concerns are the same, our goals are the same, only our methods are different. FACE is based on a practical approach created by people who have been successful in negotiations and legislative action.

[Opilah]

too northwest airlines coupon In <a href=http://wiki.apache.org/incubator-data/attachments/AirlineTickets/attachments/5a>cheapest round trip airline tickets</a> , may be <a href=https://wiki.kubuntu.org/Home?action=AttachFile&do=get&target=24a>cheap air fares india</a> Ok, here discount air travel ticket to tehran iran can <a href=http://wiki.wireshark.org/airtickets?action=AttachFile&do=get&target=14a>mal