no $11
Arnie SchoenbergPosted in Actions, Stories, Voices, Palomar Contract and issuesTagged , , ,

no $11Below are letters by adjuncts Scott Douglas and Sharon Allen opposing the Palomar Faculty Federation’s contract vote:

Fellow Adjuncts,

It is sad that two days after making the language available, the vote on the new contract is being called. This does not give much time for us to read, contemplate, and discuss. But do not let this dissuade you from voting! We all must vote!

I big issue of interest to Adjunct faculty is the rehire rights section. I read it over, rather quickly I must admit. Here are my impressions:

Under the proposed new contract language, priority to receive course assignments will be based on a priority number that each adjunct will be given. Here are a few facts you should know.

  1. You must have been a good employee (satisfactory evaluations) for six years before you can get a priority number. Otherwise you will not have any priority.
  2. Your priority number, no matter how high, will not get you any more teaching hours than the average number you have had over your carrier at Palomar. This average is you base load.
  3. Persons who are lucky enough to have taught more teaching hours than others will very rapidly gain higher priority over others no matter how many years you have been working at Palomar. This is because priority numbers grow each semester and the more you teach, the faster your number will grow. Someone who teaches twice as many classes as you, will see his or her priority number grow twice as fast as your does.
  4. After all the adjuncts in your discipline who have priority are offered their base load, any remaining classes must be given to non-priority adjuncts, including new hires. You will only be given more classes, in order of priority number, if your department feels this is preferred over making a new hire.

It would seem that those who the department want to give classes too, will very quickly move to the top of the priority list and everyone else will quickly drop to the bottom and fade away. This does not seem like a good way to protect ones job security or to increase workload up to 67% of full time for any but a chosen few.

If your desire is to teach just one class, as with retired folks and others who work full time elsewhere, you will be out soon because you will not be teaching enough classes to retain any sort of priority.

Is this what we want? Vote Carefully!

Thank you for your time,

Scott Douglas
Adjunct Instructor Mathematics,
Palomar College

=-=-=-=-

 From: Sharon Allen 
 
Dear Part-time faculty
 
I am voting “NO” on the Palomar union contract and urge you to do the same. Voting NO has no effect on your teaching or getting paid. It will not determine your evaluations, nor will voting NO determine any type of job security through the union or the district. 
 
That’s the point. There is really nothing in the contract for adjuncts other than, as Fererro indicated, “stuff to work out,” at some obscure date and time.
 
The language they use is evident of a group unwilling to attempt to achieve “equity.” Language like, “first attempt at crafting,” AND “clarification on the process for part-time evaluations.” I don’t know about you, but I’m very clear as to the intent of this contract. No need to clarify the process.
 
Voting NO sends a message. That’s it.
 
1.      There is absolutely NOTHING in the contract that protects adjunct working conditions within the PRESENT constructed language.
2.      There is nothing in the contract that protects you from having performance evaluations used against you by chairs/administrators looking to use their powers for personal gain (and some sense of twisted power. I can’t figure it out).
3.      There is NOTHING in the contract that provides protection for adjuncts should evaluations be used in abusive manners.
4.      There is NOTHING in the contract that attempts to bridge the income/wages gap, let alone the pay scale in general, that is now reduced due to further wage STEPS now being installed.
5.      There is nothing in the contract as it currently reads that honors and protects your years of service to this institution and insures that your service in the past will be respected in the present and near future.
6.      Whether six years or six semesters (3 academic years), the results are the same: the PFF and District have now constructed contract language that supports the way they have been treating adjuncts for decades. They can pick and choose who they will, based on personal preferences and personalities, with little regard for professional standards or morals. 
 
That’s the point. Neither the PFF or the District want professional standards when it comes to adjuncts. They seek instead “serfs” they can call to do their bidding. “Migrant-faculty” wandering the freeways throughout California. I understand these are harsh words if you are a new bright-eyed adjunct looking for a full time job. 
 
Let me be the first to tell you, chances are it won’t happen at the community college level. Look for a full time job elsewhere. As an example, there are laws on the books that seek a 50/50 full-time, part-time ratio. This happened in the 70’s. The reality is the ratio has now grown to 75/25 part-time to full time, and most administrators are looking to increase part-time numbers further.
 
I put the blame at the feet of full-time faculty and Unions even before the District. Who has the real power? Who has contracts that guarantee their power? Follow the contracts and the money. The few full-time faculty that have their contracts and are not interested in a greater good when it comes to higher education. They got theirs. 
 
Taking a look at the recent “cash cow” retirement packages at Palomar reveal very interesting numbers. That deserves a subcommittee of its own. There’s just no “will” on the part of full-time faculty. Full-time faculty were very scared of SB 1379 until the bill was reduced to ashes. In fact, I’ve been told that our own state union representatives and lobbyist in California are partially responsible for watering down SB 1379. SB 1379 was reduced to a piece of legislature that is nothing but air. The District and Unions know this.
 
Finally, consider this. Full-time faculty is entirely responsible for the onslaught of administrators over the past decade. Through their lack of personal responsibility to the academic institution, along with their desire to do “nothing but teach,” campuses have been invaded by an onslaught of administrators that are over-paid, with no teaching experience, but masters at pushing papers. Both administrators and full-time faculty love words like “equity” “equality” “affirmative action” “success” as words to push, not as any type of mission to live by.
 
Adjuncts, if you’re looking to teach a few classes for added income, great. But, don’t look for a real substantive career here. Don’t look for real progressive leadership happening at the community college level either. It doesn’t exist.
 
I’m betting on the current generation of young people coming out of high schools across our nation. They will either fix this mess or tear it down and build something better. In the meantime, I plan to support the Janus case. I’m no longer interested in supporting a union system that is not addressing the bigger issues of community college education in California. Even if I’m only forced to turn over a “meager” part of my pay to the unions each month, I don’t appreciate being scammed. I realize they want you believe that locals “have accomplished much,” but I don’t believe it and neither should you.
 
I encourage other adjuncts to agree or disagree with me, but we need voices more than ever before. Now is the time. Speak up.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *