Jan 04 2010

What is to be Done in 2010?

Category: News,University FinanceBob Hanke @ 1:08 am

The President’s “Report to the Community 2009” mentions the 2008-09 CUPE strike once but neglects to consider how the “economic downturn” (aka recession) is giving impetus to the growth of contract faculty (aka adjunct or contingent faculty).  Hidden contract faculty at York, both unionized and nonunionized, look forward to the new year and the President’s Task Force on Faculty Life, Learning and Convergence, and its  recommendations for transforming precarious into sustainable academic livelihoods.  For starters, the Task Force could study and report on an Affirmative Action Convergence Program that would unite YUFA full-time tenure track and tenured faculty and librarians with contract faculty. For qualified contract faculty, the Task Force could recommend that Academic Employee Relations start to define seven years of intensive ”part-time’ teaching as probationary towards tenure. Finally, how about implementing a quota that would limit the percentage of  ‘part time’ hires, starting with the Faculty of Liberal Arts & Professional Studies (FLA&PS), in order to address the casualization of academic labour and the disappearance of tenure track employment?

While we wait for this Task Force to be struck and redefine the possible, the good news is that there is no shortage of money at York. According to Shoukri’s report, “Despite challenging economic times, the campaign has raised more than $190 million towards its $200 million goal.”

While CUPE Unit 2 members may look forward to initiatives that address the sustainable livelihoods issue, we can read the news that is fit to print in the Education Life section of the The New York Times:

The Case of the Vanishing Full-Time Professor
By Samantha Stainburn (excerpted from The New York Times, December 30, 2009)

THE REALITY
If you’ve written a few five-figure tuition checks or taken on 10 years’ of debt, you probably think you’re paying to be taught by full-time professors. But it’s entirely possible that most of your teachers are freelancers.

In 1960, 75 percent of college instructors were full-time tenured or tenure-track professors; today only 27 percent are. The rest are graduate students or adjunct and contingent faculty — instructors employed on a per-course or yearly contract basis, usually without benefits and earning a third or less of what their tenured colleagues make. The recession means their numbers are growing.

“When a tenure-track position is empty,” says Gwendolyn Bradley, director of communications at the American Association of University Professors, “institutions are choosing to hire three part-timers to save money.”

THE PROBLEM
While many adjuncts are talented teachers with the same degrees as tenured professors, they’re treated as second-class citizens on most campuses, and that affects students.

It’s sometimes harder to track down adjuncts outside of class, because they rarely have offices or even their own departmental mailboxes.

Many patch together jobs at different colleges to make ends meet, and with commuting, there’s less time to confer with students or prepare for class. It’s not unusual for adjuncts to be hired at the last minute to teach courses they’ve never taught. And with no job security, they may consider it advantageous to tailor classes for student approval.

HOW TO
Colleges tend to play down the increasingly central role of adjuncts. This fall, the American Federation of Teachers complained that some top-ranked universities exaggerated the percentage of full-time faculty to U.S. News & World Report for its rankings. U.S. News declined to investigate.

Another source is the “Compare Higher Education Institutions” search tool at A.F.T.’s Higher Education Data Center. These are the stats that colleges report to the federal government.

Ask admissions officers point-blank: what percentage of classes and discussion sections are taught by part-timers and graduate assistants, and are they required to hold office hours?

For entry-level classes — the ones tenured faculty famously don’t want to teach — the squeaky wheel often gets a full-time professor, says Harlan Cohen, author of “The Naked Roommate: And 107 Other Issues You Might Run Into in College.” “If you’re not thrilled with your adjunct professor,” he says, “go to the head of the department and see what options are available. They may put you in a different section.”

CAVEATS
If you take a strict anti-adjunct stance, you may miss out on some star instructors — Barack Obama taught a seminar on racism and the law at the University of Chicago Law School as an adjunct. Professoring part-time is a hobby for overachieving architects, graphic designers, lawyers and entrepreneurs, all of whom can share insights from real-world experiences that full-time academics haven’t had.

“Before making assumptions that an adjunct is bad, Google them,” Mr. Cohen says. “You may find that real estate teacher is one step removed from Donald Trump, and these are the types of people you want to meet.”

Tags: , ,


Apr 27 2009

Majority of Members Abstain from Ratifying New Collective Agreement

Category: Post-strike Discussion (2009)Bob Hanke @ 12:51 pm

While the April 24, 2009 headlines read CUPE 3903 ratifies mediated multi-year agreements with York University, here is a breakdown of the actual Unit 2 voting results:

70% Yes (117 people voted)
28% No (46 people voted)
2% spoiled ballots (4 people voted)

With about 900 members, this represents only 18.5 % of the eligible voters. 733 people, or 81.4%, abstained from voting altogether. If participation in voting is essential to give legitimacy to political-economic authority and decision making, these results suggest that this “negotiated agreement” lacks such legitimacy.

President Shoukri claims that York “values the skills and talents of our employees.” In reality, graduate employees and contract faculty are the ghosts in the massified teaching factory. More of the curriculum has been allocated to them but they appear and disappear only to be replaced by new Ph.Ds or hired on per-course contracts to fill curricular holes as needed. The 2008-09 York University strike was, in the first instance, symptomatic of a university system in crisis. The results indicate that contract faculty feel too demoralized and depressed to vote when they have been stripped of their democractic right to collective bargaining in the name of  “financial stability.” They may feel devalued when the interests of “students based upon academic integrity” are pitted against any collective effort to expose the casualization of acadmic labour and its consequences.

In short, the results show that we have much work to do before the next round of collective bargaining begins. In the double crisis of the university and the economy, continuous organizing and mobilizing will be necessary. Let us work together so as to not waste this crisis.

Tags: , ,


Mar 06 2009

Tenuous-track Positions

Category: NewsBob Hanke @ 9:42 pm

By Jon Marcus (excerpted from Times Higher Education, March 5, 2009).

Overworked, underpaid and insecure: adjunct and part-time US faculty are fighting to convince their institutions – and tenured colleagues – that they deserve better. Jon Marcus reports

As an adjunct instructor in English at a small higher education institution in the American North West, Jessica Bryan lived with the usual indignities of being a part-time faculty member.

Unlike her senior tenured counterparts at North Idaho College, she had no job security, no benefits and none of the safeguards of academic due process. And even while teaching three classes a semester and two summer courses, and supplementing that income as a tutor in the institution’s writing centre, she earned, at best, $15,000 (£10,600) a year.

Yet Bryan continued working as an adjunct, part of the swelling ranks of contingent faculty appointed for one term at a time without the typical faculty privileges, and often resented by their full-time, tenured and tenure-track colleagues, who were watching their own proportion of the professoriate decline.

Even as a part-time instructor, Bryan prided herself on knowing all her students’ names by the end of the first week of class. She returned assignments promptly with feedback and made herself available for extra office hours.

“Like many adjuncts across the US, I did at least the same amount of work as senior tenured faculty members. I believe, because of my commitment to and love for the classroom, I did more. I entered the classroom with enthusiasm and dedication, and all my professional evaluations attest to that. My belief was that my commitment to the students, coupled with my hard work and personal concern to see my students succeed, would be rewarded, although perhaps not financially,” Bryan says.

But in the autumn of 2007, on the last day of term, the college sent Bryan an email telling her that she would not be reappointed for the following semester. It gave no reason for the move, and shortly thereafter hired another adjunct to replace her. In a written statement, the institution says that Bryan’s contract was to teach a specific course for a specific semester, and that it could not make binding commitments to part-time instructors because of the need to maintain flexibility.

Now the American Association of University Professors (AAUP), which routinely investigates complaints about workplace mistreatment of senior faculty, has forcefully intervened in Bryan’s case.

To read the rest of this article, click here.

Tags: ,


Jan 06 2009

Inaugural Issue of the CUPE 3903 Unit 2 Chronicle!

Category: Newslettersjonnyj @ 1:47 pm

The first issue of the CUPE 3903 Unit 2 Chronicle is now available for download:

The CUPE 3903 Unit 2 Chronicle – Issue 1

Tags: , , , ,


Dec 11 2008

Vote NO! to Forced Ratification

Category: Point of Informationjonnyj @ 10:32 am

VOTE NO! TO EMPLOYERS BAD DEAL

VOTE DOWN FORCED CONCESSIONS!

WHAT IS FORCED RATIFICATION?

“Forced ratification” is a loophole in the labour laws that gives the employer the power to circumvent the bargaining process, contact striking members directly and force them to vote on a deal of the employer’s own choosing. This is obviously against the principle of fair bargaining and a way to divide union members. The employer is only legally allowed to use forced ratification once.

York’s PR machine is working overtime to spin their so-called “fair, reasonable and sustainable” proposal. Let’s show them that we see through this high-priced hypocritical hype. Vote NO to the employer’s bad offer. We are ready, willing and able to bargain – York needs to match this goodwill by coming to the table instead of forcing a regressive deal on us.

WHY VOTE NO TO THE EMPLOYERS OFFER?

STAND UP FOR OUR RIGHT TO BARGAIN

Forced ratification circumvents collective bargaining. We want the employer to come back to the table and negotiate. Instead the employer has consistently rejected bargaining in favour of binding arbitration, tacitly supported back-to-work legislation, and now is pushing towards forced ratification. Since the summer, and even more so since the strike began, the York administration has done everything possible to undermine our legal rights as a union.

Instead of sitting down with us they have bargained in the media, turned us into walking targets of undergraduate anger, driver road rage and right wing talk-radio vitriol, and paternalistically treated us like children rather than valued educators. We cannot let them succeed.

VOTING NO WILL HELP US WIN A BETTER DEAL

The strike is coming to an end. Unless a settlement is reached by mid-January the summer 2009 school term will be endangered. The University will use a forced ratification vote on its inferior offer PRECISELY because it anticipates coming under greater pressure as January nears. If we vote NO, the Administration will be under tremendous pressure to settle and the union will be in an unparalleled position of strength to make up the losses this offer represents and make gains.

The Administration wants us to believe that the only choice is to either ratify now or stay out until March, but the reality is that both sides will be very anxious to settle so that classes can resume in January. Our likelihood of gaining a better contract increases substantially with a NO vote against the University’s so-called “final offer.” This is a bluff and not the best we can hope for after a six-week strike. The union fully anticipates a speedy and favourable resolution to this strike at the table. The fact that they University is resorting to forced ratification is a recognition that we can win more by staying at the bargaining table.

WHAT’S WRONG WITH THE EMPLOYER’S OFFER?

The deal the University has just posted on its site is virtually the same offer they gave us on November 4th that pushed us out on strike in the first place.

DANGEROUS AND INADEQUATE ON UNIT 2 JOB SECURITY

The employer’s offer on contract teaching is both inadequate and dangerous. Their proposed contracts would have eligible members teach 4 full courses at $60,000 a year while tenured faculty teach 2.5 and make around $90,000. This is unacceptable for our members and for YUFA because it creates a new tier of underpaid, overworked faculty subjected to the same scrutiny and rigor as tenured professors without the recognition, pay, benefits or time to do the independent research needed to get full-professorships. Instead of addressing the issues this proposal actually cements and institutionalizes the exploitation of contract faculty.

Their offer of 10 full-time (YUFA) Teaching Stream conversion appointments does not address the situation of a large number of Unit 2 contract faculty who deserve increased job security and the possibility of conversion to full tenure-track (YUFA) appointments. It is crucial that we hold the line for an offer on both conversions and long-term contracts that reverses the current trend.

INADEQUATE ON BENEFITS

The employer’s offer of indexation of some funds to address future growth is a step in the right direction, but it doesn’t address all-important issues such as conference and research funds, GA bursaries, or tuition. York claims to be offering increases of 5% and 12% but this is still a net loss for us. Our funds have lost 28% in value because of membership growth. We need benefits that grow relative to enrolment but our depleted funds must be brought funds back to 2005 levels.

WAGES & MINIMUM FUNDING PACKAGES FOR GRADUATE STUDENTS

The employer’s proposed wage increases are misleading because they don’t talk about benefits and avoid the issue of total minimum funding for graduate students. When you take wages AND BENEFITS together and set them against inflation the University’s wage offer actually adds up to a 1.4% reduction. Our present wage proposal is 4% in the first year and 4% or cost of living (whichever is higher) in the second. We’ve come down but they’re refusing to shift.

The University is offering nothing on minimum funding packages for graduate students. Contrary to the propaganda, our funding is NOT the best in the Province. Our research shows that annual guaranteed funding for graduate students at the Universities of Western Ontario, Waterloo, Toronto, Trent and Queen’s is better than our present level.

The University has also offered nothing on important issues such as class size, bursaries and leaves for Unit 3s, post-residency tuition fees, International student parity or child-care.

A TWO-YEAR DEAL FOR BETTER, COORDINATED PUBLIC POLICY ACROSS ONTARIO

York’s proposal assumes a three-year deal. This will destroy any possibility of coordinated bargaining across the post-secondary sector. Our issues at York are not isolated concerns. The sector as a whole is drifting towards more short-term, underpaid, precarious jobs, higher tuition fees, pressuring students on completion times, larger class sizes and less supports for students at all levels. The Provincial government is responsible for setting funding levels and policies that protect the quality and accessibility of education. Coordinated bargaining in 2010 targets the government as our major funder, facilitates a more rational approach to policy-making, helps the university get the funding they need, and means we can stop fighting individual and isolated battles against individual employers.

DON’T LET THE EMPLOYER BYPASS BARGAINING!
VOTE DOWN FORCED RATIFICATION!

Forced Ratification Article (Strike Bulletin)

Tags: , ,


« Previous Page