Adjuncts, Unions, and the "Right to Work"

2018 has become the Year of the Educator, with several "red" states' educators striking or otherwise successfully reminding their legislators about the, frankly, deplorable classroom situation in which our colleagues teach. As a union of educators, we applaud those secondary and primary teachers for their successful organizing (active verb) and effective communication with their sympathetic communities.

Source: Creative Commons

At the same time, the long discussion of adjuncts in colleges and universities reminds us that our contingent faculty colleagues struggle. The U.S. media applauds a strong economy (and we can argue that), but the situation for college adjuncts has maintained a sore discussion.

In 1975, 30 percent of college faculty were part-time. By 2011, 51 percent of college faculty were part-time, and another 19 percent were non–tenure track, full-time employees. In other words, 70 percent were contingent faculty, a broad classification that includes all non–tenure track faculty (NTTF), whether they work full-time or part-time. (Edmonds)

Of course, in Texas, we live and work in a "right to work" state (where educators who strike will have their teaching certificates and their Teacher Retirement System [TRS] benefits permanently revoked) and the economic market stacks the deck in favor of college employers, allowing them to cut back on wages and benefits (American Federation of Teachers). It's all about capitalism, right? Over the years, the number of full-time professors has dropped while that of adjunct professors has risen, as colleges attempt to rein in costs. Public colleges in particular rely on adjuncts.

This is a problem, because:

Firstly, some research demonstrates that the American academy reliance on adjuncts may harm students. Because of the realities of contingent working, adjunct faculties have fewer resources to support their students. This is more so in the community college, where our students need more resources, not fewer. For example, adjuncts rarely have dedicated office support staff, lack dedicated offices to meet with students, and many of our adjunct faculty drive from far away, arrive to campus in time to prepare the class, and need to leave after class for another job. This prevents convenient face-to-face time with students. The Delphi Project research has shown that students who take more classes from contingent faculty have lower graduation rates and are less likely to transfer from two-year to four-year institutions. Due largely to the exploitative conditions of their work, adjunct faculty are often less student-centered in their teaching, have less contact with students outside of class, and spend less time preparing for classes (Kezar & DePaola). A student's learning conditions will only ever be their teacher's working conditions.

Secondly, the hiring process reflects an economic market insecurity. Adjunct faculty are hired largely because of enrollment rates, and in community colleges, the enrollment rates are very sensitive to market economies. We have heard too many stories of adjuncts being hired a week before the semester, a day before the semester, the day after the semester has started, and the related stress of the insecurity and preparation. 

Thirdly, the insecurity of contingency reflects other economic insecurities and the first obvious is lack of health security. Though the Affordable Care Act attempted to address this, most community colleges lack support for  sufficient physical and mental health (this is true for Lone Star College, for example).  A March 2015 survey conducted by Pacific Standard among nearly 500 adjuncts found that a majority earn less than $20,000 per year from teaching (Chang). Nationally and locally, many adjunct faculty rely on additional government benefits. Typically, such as in Lone Star College, adjuncts are not paid for professional development and required department meetings. Of course, adjuncts are not paid for non "contact hours," though some disciplines require extensive preparation and grading. 

We should note that TA and adjunct union membership is increasing (Edwards and Tolley). The strongest strides over the past two years have been in non "right to work" states. In those other states:

Unionized faculty have negotiated steady increases that are significantly higher, and some of the steepest gains have come from unions formed within the last few years.

and

Eighty-nine percent of the contracts we examined include provisions allowing part-time faculty to receive health insurance. (Edwards and Tolley)

On the other hand, when a union does not collectively prioritize salary and benefits with adjuncts, these questions are delayed. In other words, as a union, we must prioritize our adjuncts' needs (salary, benefits, shared governance, working environment) for the whole college strength. Every department meeting, every curriculum discussion, every "safety" discussion on campus must include the real lives of our adjunct colleagues.

We Propose:

1. Tell stories. All employees should share stories of adjunct faculty; this blog is a perfect space to share and listen.
2. Share stories with the community. Lone Star College is somewhat effective with their marketing in the community, but the college does not market the adjunct reality. The American Federation of Teachers (AFT) provides a useful set of questions to ask of any school you’re interested in.
3. Inform students of the realities of adjuncts, how our adjuncts must balance time and resources with students, and explain how tuition relates to a contingent faculty.
4. Include our adjunct colleagues in meetings, listen to their needs, collaborate with everyone for working space and support. When we discuss with administration, the term "adjunct" should be included in every conversation.  

Photo rawpixel on Unsplash

Resources

American Federation of Teachers. (n.d.) "What is Right to Work." 

Chang, Bettina. (2015) "Survey: The State of Adjunct Professors." Pacific Standard.

Coalition on the Academic Workforce. (2012) "A Portrait of Part-Time Faculty Members."

Edmonds, Dan. (2015) "More Than Half of College Faculty Are Adjuncts: Should You Care?" Forbes.

Edwards, Kristen and Kim Tolley. (2018) "Do Unions Help Adjuncts?

What dozens of collective-bargaining agreements can tell us. Chronicle of Higher Education.

Kezar, A. & DePaola, T. (2018). "Understanding the need for unions:  Contingent faculty working conditions and the relationship to student learning." In Professors in the gig economy: The unionization of adjunct faculty in America.

Korkki, Phyllis. (2018) "Adjunct Professors Step up Their Efforts to Increase Pay." New York Times.  

McKenna, Laura. (2015). "The Cost of an Adjunct." The Atlantic.

An Introduction to Neoliberalism in Higher Education and the Community College

In this series of blog posts, we address an introduction to a conversation on neoliberalism and how it affects the college's students and the workers. As a series of blog posts, we do not expect to explain all the complexities or deep ramifications of neoliberalism, but we hope that the union members can see the connections of global, national, state, and LSC System policies and attitudes, damaging both the community and the workers' future. We will provide multiple resources for additional reading. Ultimately, we want to uncover how neoliberal ideologies are practiced in the college so that we can slow down or resist administrative polities.

Source: Awantha Artigala

Definitions

Though David Harvey, writing in 1990, described the late-20th century economic system as "post-Fordism," showing contrast with classical industrial (and education) economic models of early the 20th century, today we recognize neoliberalism as "an economy built on just-in-time production, the internationalization of capital, the deregulation of industry, insecure labor, and the entrepreneurial self" (Iber). Whereas Enlightenment (classical) governments fostered capitalism but highlighted personal liberty (read: liberalism), neoliberal governments "act in the interests of capital, since, if businesses do not like a certain country’s policies ... they can disrupt the economy by abruptly withdrawing from that country," and therefore "preserving the rights of capital is the goal, even when that means sacrificing democratic demands" (Iber). Usually, when folks refer to neoliberalism, we look back to the University of Chicago in 1970s when, in response to revolutions in South America, academics advised the Chilean dictator Pinochet.

Most of those who oversaw the savagely abrupt dismantling of the Allende government’s economic policies and their replacement by austerity budgets, privatization of state enterprises and the state pension system, abolition of price controls, abandonment of most foreign trade restrictions, and demobilization of the labor unions did not call themselves “neoliberals.” Some Chilean economists had picked up the term from their German reading. (Rodgers, emphasis added)

But this economic model had already been influential to American politics, and a major actor (literally and metaphorically) has affected American higher education. In 1967, California Governor Ronald Reagan (who had never completed a university program, himself) told reporters that taxpayers shouldn’t be “subsidizing intellectual curiosity" (Berrett). This hostility towards higher education continues in our national and local antipathy for both universities, colleges, and faculty. Reagan's call for austerity instead of intellectualism has been the framework for Texas higher education since the 1980s and, we argue, is the foundational culture of Lone Star College System.

We can see how U.S. government moved in 1970s, then especially under Reagan and all presidential administrations (all -- including Clinton and Obama)  have prioritized forms of capitalism instead of personal liberties. Yes, we can discuss some expansion of personal liberties since the Civil Rights Movement, the Women's Rights Movement, and important events such as reproduction rights and marriage equality, but a) every of these are being threatened by the increasingly conservative political scene, often mimicking classical calls for "liberty" but b) ultimately are benefited by the powers of production. We'll come back to this. But now, here, focus on the weakening of labor unions and the use of higher education with neoliberal government mindset.

Applications in Higher Ed

Under neoliberalism, the ultimate game is profit, privilege, and power -- not liberty. Neoliberal governments (remember, international, national, U.S. state, university systems, and college districts) “configures human beings exhaustively as market actors, always, only, and everywhere as homo oeconomicus,” explained by Wendy Brown in her Undoing the Demos: Neoliberalism's Stealth Revolution. Specifically, in neoliberal governments

• The state remodels itself as a firm
• the university as a factory, and 
• the self as an object with a price tag. (Rodgers)

We can see how the LSC administration practices this: the marketing, the enrollment process, the press releases, the "professional development" rely on corporate-speak and the discussion of college survivalism is always framed in terms of bodies, not minds. Each semester, we hear either praises for enrollment numbers (when higher) or in distress (when lower) but we rarely discuss student learning. The college models the administration as a corporation instead of a place of learning and the Board expects to reduce the tax rates though student success is not increasing; the college functions as a factory with input, cost-saving measures (obviously: contingent faculty, but also consider overcrowded classes, lack of sufficient student tutoring, and more); the administration markets large billboards to the community as a "cost-saving" opportunity -- it's all a price tag.

For now, we recommend that you watch a 43-minute video "Neoliberalism in Higher Education" produced by Critical Political Education on Vimeo.com:

Neoliberalism in Higher Education from Critical Political Education on Vimeo.

Practices in Community Colleges

The obvious symptom of neoliberalism in Texas is the decreasing funding support of the state. Whereas the American public higher education system had been founded for education for the masses through collective shared responsibility, Texas biennial budget plan is to decrease funding in each recent cycle (see, for example, Texas Monthly's "Senate Budget Slams Texas’s Colleges and Universities"). The rhetoric of the Governor, Lieutenant Governor, the Senate and Legislation all call for austerity, using terms such as "belt-tightening" and "personal responsibility." Meanwhile, textbook prices increase, LSCS tuition has increased, while community students struggle with tuition, food, transportation, and child care.

Source: Lone Star College "Tuition/Fee History"

Similarly, the LSCS contingent (adjunct) labor rate is merely $41.75, while New York State community college contingent labor rate averages at $65. The college Administration argues that the Houston "market" compares HCC, and San Jac, while New York cost of living is higher. But that's the point: we know our adjuncts are struggling in Houston, but the Administration uses market-driven arguments instead of those of personal liberties, namely ... living.

This is just the conversation.

In Future Posts:

In future posts, we will address
1. Neoliberalism action in the State of Texas
2. Neoliberalism action in Lone Star College Administration and Board
3. Effects of neoliberalism in the classroom and student success.

What We Can Do

1. We must learn more about neoliberalism in Texas: reading circles, on-line discussions, and on-campus scholarly forums to better inform. We call each union member to lead this call for on-campus informed discussion of state policies that affect our students and our working lives.
2. Share our stories. Share our stories of how college policies affect our students. Share our stories of adjunct faculty. Share our stories with overcrowded classrooms. Share our stories of "disappearing" students. Share our stories of faculty load, exhaustion, frustration, and anxieties.
3. As we expand our own learning, we must meet with our legislators regularly to resist the pervasive and emerging neoliberal practices, laws, budgets, and rationalization. 
4. Very specifically, we must press our senate faculties, our campus presidents and vice presidents, and ultimately with the Board of Trustees to demonstrate how these ideologies are harming our communities. This should be a concerted discussion, informed discussion, and persistent discussion.

Suggested Reading

Brown, W. (2015). Undoing the Demos: Neoliberalism's Stealth Revolution

del Gandio, J. (2014). "Neoliberalism, Higher Education, and the Rise of Contingent Faculty Labor." 

Harvey, D. (2007). A Brief History of Neoliberalism.

Harvey, D. (2016). "Neoliberalism Is a Political Project: An Interview with David Harvey."

Iber, P. (2018). "Worlds Apart: How neoliberalism shapes the global economy and limits the power of democracies." The New Republic.

Metcalf, S. (2017). "Neoliberalism: the idea that swallowed the world."

Rodgers, D. (2018). "The Uses and Abuses of "Neoliberalism'."

Responding to Janus, Part II

Last month, we wrote a brief summary of the SCOTUS decision of Janus v AFSCME. Since the decision, we have more time to reflect on how this right-wing court affects us as workers and as union members. With our reflections, we call for more assertive actions, especially locally, to strengthen our union in Texas.

1. The Court framed its decision as a First Amendment cause. The Court is wrong. We can address this as Texans.

The Court effectively overturned an important 1977 court decision (Abood v. Detroit Board of Education if you want to learn about that background) and argued that the First Amendment's protection of free speech prohibits public employee unions from charging a mandatory fee for the costs of representation. In Texas, we don't feel the effect of mandatory union fees for representing, but in otherwise union-friendly states, the effect of union collective bargaining is somewhat mixed in some facets and clear in others. According to The Brookings Institute (a conservative think tank), "collective bargaining rights lead to substantial increases in union presence and modest increases in wages" while "evidence on the effect of collective bargaining on public employee retirement benefits is much scarcer."

The collective bargaining act was seen as a free speech act, and Janus argued that he should not be forced to use his "speech" (union fees) though he is rewarded by the union's bargaining. However, the Court's minority dissent notes that unions do not inhibit the freedom of speech of members or non-members. While labor unions have a right to equitably represent all workers in a bargaining act, labor unions are, by law, the exclusive representatives of workers. This means that workers cannot have two labor unions representing them within the same working situation (you can imagine what a Detroit factory would look like with two working unions representing the floor, attempting to bargain with Ford; thus, the law permits only one union representing all workers). 

This singular representation is not unique to unions. We do the same in our communities where we all represent ourselves collectively in the voting machine for our taxes (note: this is ideal, of course, and we are not arguing that our voting system is either fair or equitable, especially in Texas. But let's pretend). As a taxing "collective," we cannot declare one day that as a result of differences with a government body that we should be able to avoid taxes. 

But as Bill Fletcher explains:

In the case of labor unions, they have been granted by law the right and duty to represent workers in a given economic jurisdiction—a bargaining unit. Workers in the public sector are not obligated to join the union but the compromise that was established, and been in operation for 41 years in many states that permit public sector unionism, was that those who choose not to join contribute towards representation costs. Thus, an individual worker who decides not to join the union may, nevertheless, face an issue for which they need representation. Representation costs money. A case may go to arbitration, for instance, which can be very expensive. There may be issues that have to be litigated in court. Indeed, an issue may need to go to a legislative body. These steps can be very expensive. The Supreme Court majority knows this and, essentially, what they said today is that they do not give a damn.

As Texans, we can address this easily:

1. Explain to your colleagues that this was not about free speech. This is about how collective bargaining helps all workers. 
2. Learn about collective bargaining and have a conversation with your local Texas legislator and senator. Yes, most of our legislative representatives are anti-labor, but our silence only encourages demagogues like Abbot and Patrick .
3. Look at immediate history. The massive teacher strikes this year in West Virginia, Kentucky, Oklahoma, Arizona, Colorado and North Carolina have all taken place in “right to work” states like Texas, and this common fact was likely no coincidence. Workers in “right to work” states tend to have lower salaries and fewer benefits. Remind your local legislator.

2. Let's See a Perspective of the Impact -- Public Sector Unions

The court's decision certainly continues a national trend towards attacking labor-sector unions, such as in Illinois and Wisconsin, where since 2010, union membership declined 38 percent after the attacks on unions by Gov Walker and the Legislature (for a good resource of current news on labor issues such as happening in Wisconsin, see LaborNotes.org). Yet, the international union movement is larger than public-sector, while our national (and state) hostility toward labor-sector union has been part of our lives for decades. Moshe Marvit summarizes this:

the Janus decision will only directly impact less than half of the labor movement. This is because the ruling only applies to public-sector workers: federal, state and local government employees. However, federal employees (including postal employees) have long been under so-called “right to work,” so Janus will have minimal direct impact on them.

So, as Texans, we can address this:

1. Be proactively engaged as a union. More than paying dues, be verbal, physical present. Specifically,
2. Be present for Board of Trustees meetings: start at least once a year and remind the Board that you are a union member
3. Meet your local legislative representative. Local has power while federal representatives are weak. Write your Texas legislator and senator and remind them how our union protects us as employees and strengthens us as citizens. Let them know that our union is very alive
4. Inform other college employees about our union's efforts. Recruit other members to be paying union members.

3. On the other Hand, Understand that Some Populations will be Harder than Others ... Read: than Whites. Duh.

As Miles Kampf-Lassin argues, national public-sector unions disproportionately empower Black women, "this class of hyper-exploited workers is poised to be hit hardest by the anti-union ruling."

Source: Economic Policy Institute

While public-sector labor has facilitated Black women moving into the middle class, the ugly truth is that, on average, African-American women have to work seven months longer to receive the same pay as white men. The Janus decision further exacerbates that economic disparity. This discussion of color, unions, and education needs to be discussed elsewhere.

Here, we recommend:

1. We need to hear more voices of Black women and men, Latinx women and men, and all disenfranchised workers in the college. Their stories often stun us. Our union chapter is open to all, but we see too many white voices and representation, which makes it especially important to listen. 
2. We very pointedly want to understand real racial equity in the college at every corner: administration, faculty, and staff. For example, we call for a Freedom of Information Act request for hiring status, hiring persistence, and salary at LSCS. Though some tools show salaries for University of Houston and Houston Community College, no open data are available for LSCS.
3. Trust Black Women.

4. Remember Who Represents Who: Texas Senator Ted Cruz

The Liberty Justice Center, one of the parties that represented Janus in court, received $800,000 from a policy institute funded by Richard Uihlein, an anti-union megadonor, according to tax forms reviewed by OpenSecrets. Uihlein is an Illinois businessman who has spent millions of dollars supporting Republican candidates such as Sen.Ted Cruz (R-Texas).

This is not a surprise, but as Texans, we have a responsibility to 

1. Inform (repeatedly) Senator Cruz how his poise against workers affects us, and
2. Connect with other Houstonians resisting Senator Cruz's agenda against people of color, migrants, workers, and everything that AFT stands for.

Postscript: As of 20 July, Mark Janus has left from his public-service position ... to work for the Liberty Justice Center, making even more money.

“Once again it’s clear that this court case was never about Mark Janus, but about billionaires like Bruce Rauner and big-money corporate funders launching a political attack on the freedom of working people to speak up together through a strong union,” AFSCME Council 31 spokesman Anders Lindall said. “While IPI tries to dupe workers into quitting their union, AFSCME members will continue doing what they’ve always done: providing important public services and building their union to speak up for themselves, their families and communities.”

Additional Reading

Compa, L. (2014). "An Overview of Collective Bargaining in the United States." Digital Commons.

Semuels, A. (2018). "Is This the End of Public-Sector Unions in America?" The Atlantic. 

Tang, A. (2018). "Life After Janus." [see whole 81-page PDF]

Post-Mortem of May's Houston Education Rally

On May 19th, 2018, educators throughout Harris County congregated near Discovery Green for the "Texas Public Education Rally." Co-sponsored by AFT, the "rally" was not advertised as a protest, demonstration, or anything looking like a strike, as we know educators do not have the legal right to strike in Texas. The Facebook invitation explained:

We are proud to announce that on May 19th Texas AFT, Mike Collier, and Texans for Public Education will be holding a Rally for Public Education for all teachers, parents, students, and all those who care about public education across the state of Texas. Join us at Discovery Green in Houston as we stand up for a first-class public education system and hold our leaders accountable.

Mike Collier is a candidate for Lt Governor and will run against Lt Governor Daniel Patrick. Collier's "issues" page has a fluffy claim that education is a "highest priority" but includes little detail except that he is opposed to standardized testing and that higher education should be affordable.

Texans for Public Education are a very imprecise advocacy group who are "a group of people who are sick of what the politicians are doing with our school system, so we're taking it back using something they understand very well."

The intended day for the "rally" was the day after the shooting at Sante Fe High School, and the discourse sharply moved to a question of "safety." We will address realities of school safety in a future posts. Here, we want to return to the "rally" in Houston and its insufficiency to impress neither the taxpayers nor the politicians.

We suppose that Texans could build some critical mass similar to educators in West Virginia or Colorado or North Carolina or Arizona where they decisively used effective solidarity and effective communication to persuade the community that neoliberal politicians' decades of education budget and policies have demonstrated ... again ... that neoliberalism is always a poison pill for the community.

But Texans shouldn't hold their breaths.

Seth Uzman explains that Texan educators have multiple disadvantages compared to other states:

1. The part-time Legislature, meeting only every two years, while bureaucrats of SBOE and THECB maintain daily hours. 
2. Second, in any right-to-work state with no collective bargaining rights, striking has potentially significant penalties for militant teachers. Duh.
3. "Aggravating the situation is the state’s cruelly stupid mechanism for funding teachers’ benefits. Texas is one of 15 states that doesn’t allow teachers to pay into Social Security, leaving them instead with a poorly organized pension fund through the state’s Teacher Retirement System." 

We want to discuss these other issues including the lean towards a privatized pension fund. We also need to review the state and court hostility toward laborers. We need to discuss the collaboration of community colleges and the THECB.

Actions like the rally for public education may have value in bringing together and energizing a group of people, but only if there's a significant next step that presses the need for face-to-face meetings with legislators. Because we know that as long as rallies take place outside of work hours, outside of legislative sessions, outside of the the earshot of the SBOE and the THECB, that those with power aren't listening. It will take more sustained action to be heard. The State of Texas is a well-organized oligarchy and each educator must become more direct, effective, and energized against it.