The Chronicle of Higher Education: Colloquy

Part-time professors are often caught in a bind when they try to collect unemployment benefits. State laws say that adjuncts are not eligible for the benefits if they have a "reasonable assurance" of being hired again. The rules were designed to keep schoolteachers from double-dipping by claiming they are unemployed over the summer vacation. Adjunct leaders in Washington State have engineered a change in the state law, but they say that some part-timers still have trouble getting the benefits. Should the rules be changed around the country for adjuncts? And what does "reasonable assurance" even mean when professors can be cut loose because of low enrollment or curriculum changes? Read more...

I know a number of adjuncts who really know how to milk the taxpayers out of every last unemployment penny. Its sickening and I have turned some of them in to the local government agencies. I've even turned in some of part-time teachers in the local middle school system here in Michigan.

In my opinion, an adjunct is entitled to unemployment if and only if they were employed at the start of the semester and they can prove the class they were hired to teach was canceled. Moreover, they should not be allowed to remain on unemployment longer than the current semester or the state mandated payment term (which ever is less).

Anyone who doesn't support my ideas is just out to con the taxpayers...

Of course this practice is an unfair exploitation of adjuncts. But it seems to me that this injustice, as with the many abuses that adjuncts suffer, won't be suffiently addressed or rectified unless a national adjunct union is formed. Adjuncts are powerless and are going to remain that way unless they unite, along with full time faculty, to gain some control over the institutions that exploit them.

Carl,

I hope this is a jest. However, if it isn't I wish you would send me information on how to "milk the system". Since the system milks millions of adjuncts, it would be nice to be able to turn the tables. You must really have some secret knowledge you could share!

Carl Nguyen, adjunct wrote:

> I know a number of adjuncts who really know how to milk
> the taxpayers out of every last unemployment penny. Its
> sickening and I have turned some of them in to the local
> government agencies. I've even turned in some of
> part-time teachers in the local middle school system here
> in Michigan.
>
> In my opinion, an adjunct is entitled to unemployment if
> and only if they were employed at the start of the
> semester and they can prove the class they were hired to
> teach was canceled. Moreover, they should not be allowed > to remain on unemployment longer than the current
> semester or the state mandated payment term (which ever > is less).
>
> Anyone who doesn't support my ideas is just out to con the
> taxpayers...

Wow! Shades of the facist Bush administration. "If you disagree with me, you are unpatriotic {and we will find reason to arrest you}."

Damn, dude, aren't you the dutiful little citizen, turning in your fellow employees to the man for are getting fat on those big unemployment bucks. Bet if you look around the 'hood, you can find some welfare queens to rat out, too. And keep an eye out for those rascally homeless children trying to grab an extra hunk of government cheese. We all owe you a HUGE debt of gratitude!

I imagine you'll have a fan in Prof. Mfume, though.

Carl,

I think that you have a commendable desire to see taxpayer funds used wisely. however I believe that you are wrong. Let's call adjunct faculty what they are which is contingent staff contractors. Contract professionals in other industries who are on a W-2 contract payroll status are eligible for unemployment when they are not working. I speak with some experience here as I worked for seven years as an IT contractor.

The ability to draw unemployment when the time between contracts got to be more than a couple of weeks was what enabled me to stay in the business and even get more responsible positions during the dot-com bust. I could focus on learning new skills and marketing myself without having to worry about what my family was going to eat. Responsible adjuncts would be able to use that "down-time" to become better prepared teachers. Is there a potential for abusse? Yes, that is an unfortunate part of life. However, if we consider equity to be a positive social value, it is wrong for adjunct (contractor) faculty to be treated any differently than any other contract employee. They should be able to draw unemployment like any other contingent worker.

James Francisco

I was an adjunct. More power to anyone who can squeeze more money out of society for what they should be paying more. A former governor here once referred to publich higher ed. faculty as pigs at the public trough. He had it backwards. The government is just another aspect of a society creating and maintaining a legalized peonage system, education sweatshop workers. A lot of us have a hand in this too. I support the use of unemployment insurance to elevate adjunct income from, oh, 40%-50% to 60%-70% of a normal starting salary.

Certain kinds of adjuncts are good in certain areas. A politician or government administrator teaching government or political science or public policy, etc. THAT's the ideal role. OK maybe an emergency, temporary fill-in ... But nowadays, programs are LIVING on Adjuncts. A program at my school in a Gen.Ed/Lib.Arts discipline was CREATED for an adjunct. It's odious. The whole system is corrupt. We create many more Ph.D.s that can be employed, creating a big, fat labor surplus that gives our institutions the opportunity to keep wages down and keep the number of full time faculty down by hiring more and more adjuncts. It's corrupt. It's loathesome.

I am one of the adjuncts who helped engineer the change in the Washington State law that allowed adjunct faculty to apply for unemployment benefits during school breaks, i.e. Christmas, Spring Break, August / September recess between summer and fall terms.

To qualify for such benefits, a minimum number of work hours (680) must be accumulated within the previous four calendar quarters, a threshhold applied to all applicants in Washington. One of the problems we ran into was that the only hours being reported to The Dept of Employment Security by the colleges were the in-class hours on which the contract stipend was based despite the contract language stating that the stipend was also meant to cover out-of-class prep, grading, and meeting with students. This under-reporting of actual hours worked prevented mant adjuncts from even qualifying for benefits. We rectified this by getting the Dept of Employment Security to apply a scaling formula based on the in-class hours to account for those out-of-class hours in the same way they calculated eligibility for retirement and health benefits for full-time instructors.

With respect to "reasonable assurance", we found that prior to the law, the colleges were using previous employment history as a means to justify their claims of the adjunct having "reasonable assurance" of returning to their previous position. Our argument was that the primary consideration should be the conditional nature of the employment offer (enrollment level, program and budget changes) under which a course could be cancelled or taken from the adjunct up to and even including the first week of classes, regardless of past employment patterns between the adjunct and the college.

As a final note, even if the adjunct does receive benefits, they often are not comparable in amount or length of time to those typically receiving such benefits based on employment in other areas of the workforce.
These benefits typically only serve to "bridge the gap" for those who are trying to make a living in academe hoping to gain experience and have a foot in the door when a full-time position might open up. I hardly think such benefits amount to "milking the system" since they dry up rather rapidly.

The article about unemployment for adjuncts had a lot of good points, but relayed incorrect information from the Community Colleges of Spokane, which said that since it was a 9 month institution, that adjuncts would no longer qualify for unemployment benefits. The Washington state legislator who helped get adjuncts UI benefits noted that being a 9 month institution has nothing to do with UI benefits. Once again, administrators at an institution are spending their time, and our tax dollars, trying to scare adjuncts and sending out wrong information (lies?) in order to keep more money for them to spend. At our school, they threw one million dollars at a "book dealer" who took the money and left town. So we must be careful of the information that the administration, and often of some union representatives, tell us, as it is deliberate "misinformation." If only the administrators put this much effort into finding funding to fully pay all their instructors, and make our schools better learning experiences, without attacking the teachers whenever possible.

1. Unemployment is intended for earnest workers who are out of work. Adjunct faculty in Washington state community colleges, like other contingent faculty, are not employed between terms and therefore can apply for unemployment between terms. To imply that such people are “milking the system” is profoundly offensive.

2. It’s the higher ed establishment that’s milking contingent faculty. In my case as an adjunct, I typically teach 70 percent of a full-time annual teaching load; as such, my pay, as reported on my W-2 in 2003, was $12,069, which is far from being 70 percent of the lowest ranking full-time instructor. I’ve been teaching at my institution since winter of 1992. Adjuncts applying for unemployment between terms is a small way of compensating for the non-pro-rated pay.

3. A curious thing for adjuncts in Washington state is their paydays: adjuncts have to wait four weeks for their first paycheck of the term with subsequent paychecks issued twice a month thereafter, while full-time faculty are paid at two-week intervals from the beginning of each term. The reason for this difference is the lapse between a “pay period” and a “payday.” As full-time faculty are employed year-round, there is no problem to issue their paychecks two weeks into the term, but adjuncts, by contrast, are technically not employed prior to the beginning of the term’s beginning date. Issuing them a paycheck only two weeks into the term effective pays them for work they haven’t yet performed. (Passage of SB 2383 last year was intended to rectify this delay in payment for adjuncts, but a number of institutions, like mine, haven’t taken action to modify adjunct pay dates.) This underscores the fact that adjuncts are not employed between terms.

4. About the comment that the abuse of contingent faculty won’t be addressed “unless a national adjunct union is formed,” it is worth mentioning that some current union professional staff, who may be well versed in K-12 issues, seem utterly ill-informed about unemployment for higher ed contingents, and the meaning of “reasonable assurance” and how colleges in Washington state now include it adjunct contracts as a way of hedging against future unemployment claims.

5. I believe there is merit in the suggestion made by Dr. Keith Hoeller in his 9/23/04 Chronicle article (http://chronicle.com/jobs/2004/09/2004092301c.htm) that "...federal law needs to make explicit that the "reasonable assurance" provision does not apply to
adjuncts."

Jack Longmate (jacklongmate@earthlink.net)
Adjunct English Instructor
Olympic College, Bremerton, WA

Jack, I'll reply to each of your items in turn.

1. Taking time off between terms to sit at home and collect a check from taxpayers is milking the system. Unemployment is not supposed to be a paid vacation. These adjuncts are educated people. They need to find a part-time job in between teaching jobs to tide them over. Taxpayers have no obligation to "fill in the gaps" for them. After all, taxpayers have their own families to provide for. Sorry if you are insulted, but if the shoe fits wear it.

2. If you think you are begin taken advantage of, go some place else. Are those colleges holding a gun to your head? Is someone forcing you to work there?

If the working environment is that bad, maybe you should consider some other industry to work in.

3. This is just whining. So long as you get paid what your contract says, where's the beef???

4. Your desire for a union tells me that you have had no real exposure to the AAUP. Be careful what you wish for.

5. I can't believe you want the federal government involved in your personal job issues. Be careful what you wish for.

I suggest Jack you take what I have written to heart. I have been doing this for many, many years and I do know what I am talking about. Adjuncts HAVE been playing the game. Maybe it is to survive. Nevertheless, taxpayers are the ones putting up the ante so adjuncts can play.

Its not right. It needs to stop.

The underlying problem here is not whether or not adjuncts are elgible for unemployment, but why we have an education system where a large number of our teachers need to supplement their salary. If adjuncts were paid decently to begin with, or were made into full-time employees, we wouldn't have these problems.

The spirit of unemployment is not to pay people who have the summer off. The universities are abusing the system by having the government supplement the salary of their underpaid staff.

I would like to respond to some of the comments made regarding adjuncts receiving unemployment. One of the comments suggested that adjuncts are powerless. Adjuncts, and all other workers for that matter, are not powerless. A person can choose to work elsewhere. A worker is selling a service, no different than a company selling a widget. Further, companies are competing for that service. That is the power adjuncts have. The can sell their service to the highest bidder, so to speak. If one does not like the terms, he or she may sell his or her service to someone else.

Several months ago, I wrote an article for THE CHRONICLE about how adjuncts should try become more visible. The unemployment benefits issue would be an excellent point of contact with full-time faculty, faculty senates, or bargaining units. You have to make the case that these inequities and this fundamental unfairness hurts the ENTIRE profession. Also, institutions that purposely misconstrue state unemployment regulations to further exploit an already exploited class of educators should simply be ashamed to go before the public and make claims for a better world through higher education. My essential advice is not to suffer alone or in silence. Find someone who will listen to sound arguments--someone with even a small connection to policy matters and the power to change things.

On a personal note, I can't believe this stuff is still going on. I first fought for unemployment benefits back in the seventies and early eighties. "Reasonable Assurance" was still the operative concept used to deny part-timers benefits. This strategy was used and supported by college administrators and even some chairs who volunteered to testify at hearings AGAINST their own faculty. This situation reached levels of cynicism, outrage, and absurdity that are difficult for some outside the acacemy to believe. For example, one day three hearings were held--two people were denied benefits, while one was allowed. All three people presented exactly same arguments. Kafka anyone?

As for Carl's position, I remember hearing a tenured professor arguing that if non-tenured faculty didn't like their situation, they should just get out of education. I said I would agree with him if he would accept every policy and suggested pay raise handed down from administrators for ALL faculty in the future. No more asking for raises, better working conditions, or release time--no more full-timer whining. He became a good advocate for adjuncts until he retired.

To Carl,

It seems pure slander to imply, as you do, that adjuncts are "taking time off between terms to sit at home and collect a check from taxpayers is milking the system. Unemployment is not supposed to be a paid vacation. These adjuncts are educated people. They need to find a part-time job in between teaching jobs to tide them over. Taxpayers have no obligation to "fill in the gaps" for them. After all, taxpayers have their own families to provide for. Sorry if you are insulted, but if the shoe fits wear it."

To respond to your unsupported charges: Carl, Carl, adjuncts are taxpayers!!! We are not taking paid vacations! We are talking about time when we are not contracted. As for your suggestion to find a part-time job between quarters, why don't you find a part-time job between quarters and see how easy it is? Would you like us to work at espresso stands? Great, maybe we would have to serve our students java, or work as bartenders, and serve our students beer, or pizza drivers? These scenarios certainly would give students the idea that having an education pays off, right? Wrong! And I really resent your implication that adjuncts don't contribute to the tax base. We are taxpayers, and we have a right to legal UI benefits.

Second, Carl, I'm really disappointed to see you using the old "love it or leave it" either/or argument, as well as your tired, offensive, and violent gun metaphor. Perhaps you might have used the same argument about slavery, that there's nothing we can do about it? I've discovered that only quitters advise adjuncts to quit. Are you a quitter? Are you ready to abandon your ship when you see an injustice.? If so, then why are you in higher education? With your attitude of "If the working environment is that bad, maybe you should consider some other industry to work in," it seems that you will always accept the status quo, as long as your paycheck is ok. I think you are the one who should consider some other industry (as if teaching is an industry, which it is not.) There are many petty dictatorships that might employ you.

Third you wrote this about Jack's excellent points, reducing them to "This is just whining. So long as you get paid what your contract says, where's the beef?" Like the governor of California who wishes he could banish the debt with "Asta La Vista" or like George Bush "staying the course" you have not advanced the argument at all or done any good. You are only stooping to namecalling and popular culture "easy solutions." Perhaps you need to take a basic logic and argument class, so you can deal with Jack Longmate's reasoned and clear argument.

Four, we can discuss unions all day long, the democratic side and the big boss side. If you have something against the AAUP, please be specific, and avoid innuendo. We would all love to hear what you think is specifically wrong with the AAUP.

Five, you wrote to Jack, "I can't believe you want the federal government involved in your personal job issues. Be careful what you wish for." Well, it took the federal government to develop civil rights in the '60. The federal government is an easy target, but again it often is an instrument of justice.

You wrote: "I suggest Jack you take what I have written to heart. I have been doing this for many, many years and I do know what I am talking about. Adjuncts HAVE been playing the game. Maybe it is to survive. Nevertheless, taxpayers are the ones putting up the ante so adjuncts can play. Its not right. It needs to stop."

I would advise Jack not to spend a moment thinking about your e-mail that has no substance. I'd respond that Jack and I and others have also been teaching as adjuncts for many, many years. WE HAVE MADE PROGRESS, DESPITE NAYSAYERS. I'd like to ask you to reflect on your writing. Aren't you just justifying this situation because you don't want to take responsibility to fix it? We all get down because of the difficulty and the seemingly impossible task. Sometimes, we even want to blame each other, the way you blame other adjuncts for trying to improve their situation. Carl, I'd ask you to reconsider your position, and whether pouring your energy into making sure that all academic professionals are treated equally might be a better use of your time and energy.

Perhaps it's Mr. Nguyen who is out of touch. The AAUP? You're kidding I'm sure. I'm an AAUP member, and aside from issuing position statements, there's not much else they're doing to help the thousands of adjuncts around the country. The union at my home institution isn't much better. Every year we pay our union dues as required, and what we get is a small raise (3% range) about every 3 years. Sometimes we also get contract resolutions requiring things like a committee to "study" the issue of pro-rated health insurance benefits. We get questionnaires in the mail which we dutifully complete and return, without result. Other than that, the union is unable or unwilling to get us the what we repeatedly ask for, things that will act to change the CULTURE of institutions living on their adjunct faculty. For example:

(1) Priority for long-time adjuncts when full-time positions open up in their work areas. If you keep hiring us, we must be able to do the job you want. If we can do the job successfully for 5, 6, 10 years, why can't we GET the job? Then unemployment would cease to be an issue.

(2) Related to this is the establishment of consistent full-time:part-time faculty ratios. Should an institution have 300 part-time faculty supporting less than 100 full-time faculty? Should a particular work area have 1 full-timer and 15 adjuncts? Consistent ratios should be set according to type of program, type of institution, and institutional mission.

(3) (yawn) Fair compensation and benefits. Does Mr. Nguyen think that we sit home all summer getting a tan? The adjuncts I work with, with the exception of retirees who have pensions, MUST have other work besides teaching to survive in the expensive Northeast. Unemployment compensation for a few weeks during the summer is a meager but much-needed supplement to our total income.

Just because most of what I've written here is nothing new to most Chronicle readers doesn't mean it shouldn't be said again and again. That's part of what's required in making a cultural sea-change. So what's the point of all this? We need a NATIONAL UNION WITH AN ACTIVIST AGENDA. As pointed out by Brendan at Midwest U, many programs and entire institutions really are living on adjuncts, which is true in Massachusetts as well. Organizations such as the AAUP call upon academia's "conscience" in efforts to gain equality for all faculty. That the faculty in the majority of institutions around the country remains bifurcated is clear indication that even in the hallowed halls of academia, conscience is not enough. The only way to change this downward spiral is to organize and act together. It's simple math that institutions will continue this trend until we (adjuncts) cost them more.

>>Contract professionals in other industries who are on a W-2 contract payroll status are eligible for unemployment when they are not working.<<

Mr. Nguyen,

The above quote from Mr. Francisco, an IT Manager in this forum, illustrates the issue of equity for part-time or adjunct community or four-year college instructors and other employees of various states. This includes graduate students who are used to teach undergraduate classes, usually without supervision in my own experience, yet paid less than minimum wage. My late husband was a marine engineer with a powerful union, Marine Engineers Beneficial Organization (MEBA). His profession was one of the highest-paid for persons who did not necessarily go beyond high school, as he did not. Every year, rules required that the marine engineers spend a certain amount of time "on shore." During this time, they were paid full unemployment benefits. Because of the high pay of their profession, they received maximum benefits.

I worked then, as I do now, as an adjunct or part-time college teacher, often rushing from school to school just in time to stand up in front of the next class. In Washington State, they sometimes call us "gypsy teachers" because of the long distances we have to commute to cobble together a living wage. I earned about $12,000 a year working four quarters a year. Now, decades later, I earn virtually the same salary, have no medical benefits, and no retirement. My current income hovers just above the poverty level for a family of one.

My late usband earned around $80,000 for three months of work, then was able to collect unemployment when he was mandated to be on shore. He also received fully paid and generous benefits for the entire family. As for "reasonable assurance" that he would be employed again, one could say that because for 25 years he always shipped out again, that might constitute reasonable assurance.

Was he milking the system? Was MEBA? Are you, Mr. Nguyen, going to take on MEBA and turn in all those lazy marine engineers who lounge about on shore when they're not working?

My point here is not only about equity in pay, but also how our society values various kinds of work. I believe that teaching is one of the most important professions, and that adjunct faculty are some of the best teachers. After all, we don't have tenure to rest on. We know we can be fired at will. We teach because we passionately care about offering quality education to every individual, and because we believe that critical thinking and communication (as well as other skills) are essential to a democratic society.

Yet our society values running the engine of a ship at around $4,000 a week for an "ajunct" marine engineer. In one month at sea, my husband earned what I earned in an entire academic year. Does our society value the profession of education and teaching as it values the rapid movement of goods between countries? Are teachers still expected to be nuns and monks who teach for the greater glory of the Higher Power and do without a personal life?

Clearly, the states use part-time workers not only as adjunct professsors, but in numerous other professions to avoid paying not only unemployment but also medical insurance and retirement. Yes, Mr. Nguyen, this saves the taxpayers' money. But at what expense?

As near as I can follow Jack Longmates rambling, comments his basic complaint is that as an adjunct he is underpaid and worthy of more compensation. This compensation could come from the colleges in the form of better/more pay or from the state in the form of improved access to unemployment benefits. But someone owes Jack money!

Look, adjuncts decide to enter into a contract that causes them to be paid a rather low salary and not given benefits.

At the conclusion of this employment cycle they conclude, "hey, I am being exploited by the system." No, they are not being exploited, they entered into a contract out of their own free will and now they do not like the results. No one promised them nice jobs with interested students and paid summer vacations. If you do not like your job pay or benefits, go do something else!

The next comment we hear is that they went to school for X number of years and they can't make a living doing what they are trained to do. So what? Go deliver pizza, it pays better than college teaching. If your skills are not marketable, you need to go do something else. I often teach MBA classes and every term I have medical doctors, bench scientists and school teachers in my classes that, unlike college professors, seem to understand that if your skills do not pay what you feel you are worth, go get trained to do something else!

Next comment we read is that the colleges should pay the adjuncts better to get better teaching. What? My guess is that the local college knows exactly what it is getting when it pays its adjuncts very little money. It is getting bored retired people that will work for very little money because they enjoy the stimulation. It is getting bored professionals they will work for very little money because they enjoy doing something different. It is getting a few, whiner professor wanna-be types that can't handle the fact that they graduated 20th in a class of 22 from a second rate college. Sorry, I know, the underemployed Harvard Ph.D. will soon fire away in complaint. But I stand by my point. If you were skilled, the market would pick you up and pay you a nice salary with summers off to talk to students.

To paraphrase another Jack, what Jack and 99% of the other adjuncts can't handle is the truth. You are not skilled/smart/hard enough working at publishing to get fulltime work.

Sorry guys, but no one promised you an easy life and to me your efforts to get unemployment represent yet another effort to get someone else to pay for your inability to compete.

I will post without a name to stop the same adjunct faculty at my school would want to kill me. Who says PC Codes are not alive and well?

Dear Carl,

1. K-12 teachers and full-time HE faculty would be milking the system if they received unemployment, since their jobs are generally full-time, even though they may not teach during the summer. With contingent faculty, on the other hand, they are unemployed when they’re not teaching.

What’s more, their part-time status is involuntarily. They are victims of a system which, rather than creating full-time positions, hires many, many part-time instructors at severely discounted pay rates with restricted workload assignments. The fact that Washington state has only 3,700 full-time instructors compared to over 11,000 part-time instructors is not because there isn’t enough work to justify more full-time positions. It’s to save money.

For these poverty-level professionals, receiving unemployment is hardly “a paid vacation” at taxpayers’ expense.

It’s true that no one is forcing adjuncts to teach. But when there are no full-time positions, there is hardly much choice in the matter. To introduce competition into the system, one idea would be to discount tuition for courses taught by adjuncts at the same rate that adjuncts’ pay rate is discounted. Wouldn’t taxpayers be delighted if their sons and daughters could get a 57 percent tuition break if they took a course from an adjunct?

2. You suggest that if employment conditions are so bad, that it would be prudent to work elsewhere. For those considering money alone or just their personal situation, that may be sound advice. But such an approach does little to remedy the dysfunctional nature of higher education in our country. I might step aside, but then someone else might earn the $12,069 that I earned in 2003. Or isn’t that a problem?

4. In the reference to unions, my purpose was to point out that established unions, like the one I’m a member of, do not serve adjunct faculty very well if their professional staff is consumed by K-12 issues, leaving them unaware or ill-informed of issues like unemployment for adjuncts. I’m unclear where you were heading in your reference to the AAUP; I have to say that, while I am not a member, those connected with the AAUP and its leadership are among the most intelligent and civic minded in our country.

Carl, since you seem so determined in the positions you take, why don't you explain a bit more about your background and how you came to have the convictions that you do?

Best wishes,

Jack Longmate

Adjuncting is a choice. The problem is that we academics allow universities to exploit them but the public isn't responsible for supporting them. If an adjunct is teaching 4 classes or whatever the full-time workload is at her institution, she should get benefits while she's working there. If there aren't courses for her to teach every semester, she doesn't deserve to file for unemployment because she knows that adjuncts are never guaranteed work, so it's a choice she's making to adjunct. I think that if we want to involve the government, get them to pass a law that says universities cannot exploit adjuncts and must treat them fairly. The way the system is set up, adjuncting is not a career and should not be treated as one. The system needs an overhaul.

I question "I'm a Prof"'s assumption that adjuncting is a choice. In today's market, it's often the only option for people who want to continue to teach on the college level, but are unable to secure full-time teaching jobs. It's either adjuncting or finding a job outside of academia, which doesn't help the cv when it's time for the next round of job applications.

"I question "I'm a Prof"'s assumption that adjuncting is a choice. In today's market, it's often the only option for people who want to continue to teach on the college level, but are unable to secure full-time teaching jobs. It's either adjuncting or finding a job outside of academia, which doesn't help the cv when it's time for the next round of job applications."

If you cannot land a fulltime job in academe, it's because you didn't earn it. If your institution didn't prepare you for an overly impacted market, then you failed to do your homework BEFORE opting to accept enrollment into that graduate program. If you graduated from a graduate program with a high placement history and you STILL couldn't land a fulltime job, then whose fault is that? If you can't put the publications out, or if you can't teach well, if students don't like you, if you are an irascible colleague, if you are a bad job interviewee, if you get so nervous during a job talk that you botch it, if you can't field the inappropriate interview question with aplomb, if you know going into the profession how unbelievably fickle the hiring process is and how incredibly competitive TT jobs are even in the most isolated and disreptuable institutions, if you aren't aware that the majority of candidates take two to three years just to make a SHORT list for a TT job....if nobody informed you of or prepared you for this scenario and you are only now coming to this realization and your long held ideals of a life of the intellect are crumbling before the numerousand hopeless manila envelopes you're about to mail out, then you must leave. This is academia. This has ALWAYS been academia. This will always BE academia. And if, by chance--by some fickle chance--you DO land that dreamt of TT job, you will compromise those ideals as you find yourself on the path to becoming Deadwood because you'll have worked so hard and been so worked over that your youthful idealism will seem as a joke. It will be nice for a while, but then you'll wonder, "All of this work and emotional agony and grey hair--for this? To call these people colleagues? To teach these bored students? For this pittance of a salary? To writre another boring book that maybe ten percent of those in my specialized field will read (80% of whom will be critical of my scholarship)? To counsel neurotic and immature graduate students in the hopes that one out of fifty of them might make it through their jargon-laden dissertations to join me in the ranks of the disenchanted? To live a life apart instead of in contingency with all that you held so dear while you were a graduate student?

What a foolish, foolish choice. You deserve all the exploitation that falls upon your altruistic shoulders.

Carl Carl Carl,

Sounds to me like what you need is the love of a good, honest, caring woman to teach you compassion and understanding for others, especially for your fellow workers. I know someone who's available in the DC suburbs and might be a perfect match for you -- her name is Linda Tripp.

I'll admit to having zero experience at having to support myself on adjunct teaching, but I do sympathize with the difficulties in finding a tenure-track job. I spent four years job hunting after graduate school until I finally got a tenure-track position here at ASU.

Instead of adjunct teaching (and suffering the concomitant employment problems), I was employed in research post-doc positions, which is where I thought Ph.D.s went while waiting for the big tenure-track break (in my field, anyway, which is chemistry). I had great experiences, made a 12-month salary, and even did a little adjunct teaching on the side to build my CV. Is this a possible solution to the suffering of some adjunct Ph.D.s?

I understand that my message here is not directly on point regarding adjunct unemployment benefits, but several posts in this debate have focused on alternatives to adjunct teaching (where else adjuncts could go if they don't like the conditions). Just trying to offer an alternative.

Is part of the problem with adjunct conditions an imbalance between supply and demand of Ph.D.s? If supply is way above demand, Ph.Ds can always be exploited because replacements can always be found for anyone who speaks up and complains.

Monica, Monica, Monica,
Why do you assume that I'm heterosexual? Is it because you also assume on seeing my surname that I must be an overbearing, patriarchal Asian male? Then you must also assume that no woman can care for me who I will not also physically abuse and exploit. So why do you make such a wrongful suggestion?

Please, Monica.

Mr. Nguyen:

In your latest self-righteous rant, you failed to answer Mr. Longmate's questions about your credibility to speak on these matters. What, specifically, qualifies you to issue such a blanket indictment of every single adjunct in the United States? Your sweeping generalizations fail to illustrate that you can argue a logical point.

I'm interested to know how Mr. Nguyen (or any other readers) feel about the idea of part-time faculty applying for and collecting unemployment benefits as activism, since doing so effectively raises the cost of an institution's use of adjuncts rather than full-time faculty.

As I mentioned in my previous post, it's simple math that institutions will continue the trend of overreliance on and exploitation of part-time faculty until these actions start costing them more.

Mr. Nguyen writes, "If you think you are begin taken advantage of, go some place else. Are those colleges holding a gun to your head? Is someone forcing you to work there?"

This same argument was used by many of the Robber Barons in the nineteenth century to rationalize child labor and inhumane conditions in factories during the Industrial Revolution. Is Mr. Nguyen suggesting that employers have an absolute right to set any sort of working conditions they choose for their employees and if the employees don't like it, they can "go someplace else"? At what point can workers object to their treatment? Or perhaps Mr. Nguyen believes that if a company/institution decides not
to pay workers at all, the employees can put up with it or get out.

Actually, the adjunct position is far more defensible than Mr. Nguyen's ill-conceived argument. He writes, "If you cannot land a fulltime job in academe, it's because you didn't earn it." What, pray tell, are your criteria for "earning" a job? What can you tell us about your background on hiring committees? Please explain to the members of this discussion board what qualifies you to speak so authoritatively on how inept and unqualified part-time teachers are. By your own standards, we have to dismiss what you are saying. After all, you are ONLY an adjunct.

"Mr. Nguyen:

In your latest self-righteous rant, you failed to answer Mr. Longmate's questions about your credibility to speak on these matters. What, specifically, qualifies you to issue such a blanket indictment of every single adjunct in the United States...?"

Well, my dear Ms Zimbleman, certainly nothing I've read from your shallow and overly determined rosy online accounts of community college teaching, where adjuncts are arguably the MOST exploited commodity in all of higher ed. Only a fool stays on to teach at such a place thinking s/he has no better financial alternative than to earn $800-$2500 per class, knowing that s/he will only be offered just enough classes so as NOT to qualify for benefits. Do I lie, Ms Zimbleman? Do I rant? Is my experience exceptional or has it come to be accepted as the rule among adjunct teaching? I stay because I enjoy the teaching, not because I'm idiotic enough to think I could ever make a "living" on such wages--unless of course I had nothing but time to drive from campus to campus and then spend my time at home teaching online classes--or that things will soon change for the better. They will not. Yes, yes, you CAN make $80,000 teaching as an adjunct, as another idiotic online columnist claimed, just don't take time to eat or breathe--and make your assignments as transparent and substanceless as the wind. Your students will appreciate it!

Please, Ms Zimbleman.

Adjunct instructors should enjoy the same benefits and restrictions as do independent contractors in any profession. Because adjunct instructors do not maintain permanent full-time status at their prospective institutions, they should not receive nor expect the same rights, protections, compensation, or privileges set aside for their permanent counterparts. To assume any additional considerations are appropriate, demonstrates a simplistic understanding of how higher education is funded. Trade laborers have operated under these distinctions for decades and understand that independence has a price. Educators should not expect a different playing field.

I remain in firm agreement with Nguyen's points if not his wording.

Longmate and Maria keep using the loaded words of "overreliance on and exploitation of part-time faculty". Nguyen and I both reject this point. It is NOT exploitation to hirer willing employees at a salary lower than other people or even lower than I am willing to accept. Longmate agreed to work at the salary. If he is underpaid (by his measure) then he should go do something else. The is not some greater conspiracy forcing adjucts to work for this allegidly low pay. Going furthure, most schools have more applicants for adjunct work than they have slots. Some of the evidence suggests Longmate and other adjucts are not exploited; rather, they are over paid and exploiting the college students. After all, the high tuition dollars are going to pay faculty and adjuncts that would willingly work for LESS money.

Maria, Longmate and others, please define the terms of "overreliance" and "exploitation". I do not want you to say, "this is an example of exploitation or of overreliance." Define it. My college teaches 50% of the english classes with adjuncts and I am told often this is too much. What does this mean?

EJM

I think there is one thing going on with adjuncts in higher ed that really needs further examination, before determining whether unemployment benefits should be rightfully extended to adjuncts:

While the Hoeller article discusses how adjuncts don't qualify for unemployment because of the "reasonable assurance" test under unemployment eligibility law, the assumption that adjuncts are employees at all, like other teachers, needs to be tested.

On one hand, employees get all sorts of benefits from their employers, and even part-time employees can qualify for unemployment benefits (depending on specifics of state law). Meanwhile, self-employed persons typically do not qualify for unemployment benefits - although a self-employed individual is allowed to buy unemployment insurance directly from the state (I *think* - don't ask me for the particulars on this). And, self-employeds, in so many other fields, typically get paid *more* than regular employees precisely because the employer is not paying into their social security, withholding taxes, providing unemployment benefits, etc.

But of course, colleges and unis do withhold the taxes of their adjunct instructors. And those temporary contracts do use the word "employee" to refer to adjuncts, especially in the sentence "Employee can be terminated at will." But in all other respects, aside from taxes, colleges and unis tend to treat adjuncts as independent contractors - no employee or fringe benefits added usually. A common term to describe adjuncts, "hired gun", seems to bear out the sentiment that adjuncts are not "real" employees, but more like temps (but self-employed ones, instead of thru a temp agency that referred them to the uni). It makes one wonder if the word "employee" in the temporary contract isn't a mistake, borne out of careless drafting of the contract itself. Perhaps the more accurate word should be "independent contractor".

Anyway, so what's my point? My point is, if you are an employee, you should get certain benefits that all other employees get due to their paying taxes - if, indeed, the taxes withheld include unemployment taxes. (This whole argument completely side-steps the reasonable assurance test, and the particular carve-out exception to unemployment-eligibility-during-summers-off for teachers in general, by the way). If you are a self-employed individual, then you should be able to get unemployment insurance through the direct route (and because the uni or college is not providing you with any benefits, your pay should be higher to compensate (at it is for self-employeds in other fields), so you can then turn around and use that extra money to pay into Social Security and EI yourself). This would not be a "gift" - this would be just and fair compensation to you as an independent contractor or vendor). And you should be able to access the benefits that self-employeds typically have - such as being able to deduct more things as business expenses (such as the cost of mileage driving your vehicle to and from the place(s) where you teach), or commuting costs, and any other expenses you incur during the your engaging in the enterprise of part-time teaching (I'm especially thinking of deducting the cost of a laptop computer, in this instance).

But as it stands now, in practical terms, adjuncts are being treated as self-employeds and going without the usual benefits of being an employee (e.g., employer-provided unemployment insurance, health insurance). And, at the same time, adjuncts are being treated as employees, by having taxes withheld and not being able to take the benefits of being a self-employed individual (higher pay for the same work, usually; deductions for business expenses, AND, being able to obtain unemployment insurance directly from the state for a fee). So adjuncts are getting the worst of all worlds (but you knew that) - all the burdens of being an employee AND a self-employed individual, but neither set of benefits that comes with being either an employee OR a self-employed individual.

And I suppose this whole thread about adjuncts and EI should put to rest one notion: adjuncts, even if adjuncts are employees, are not really treated as such - nor are they treated as belonging to the "academic community" of either their home institutions or of the larger academic profession. This is part of the reason why I left adjuncting (and also later left my assistant professor position). The two-tiered system stinks.

Sorry, Bill - your post stated much more succinctly what I was trying to say in my LONG post. (I didn't reload the page and see your comment until after I sent in my long post).

Also, I am now very curious about Carl Nguyen because of all of his impassioned posts. When I adjuncted, I also worked full-time in a field that paid. Consequently, I did not feel like I was exploited personally because I had my full-time (and non-academic) job to pay the bills. The adjunct job was just pin money. Mr. Nguyen, would you be so good to enlighten us at to your "status" - why is it that you don't feel like you are being exploited? I really am curious to know (this is a sincere question).

Good old invective, name calling, and poor reasoning have taken over yet another colloquy, and Molly hasn't even found a way to trash 60s leftists yet (or if she has, she hasn't posted it). It seems to me there are pretty straightforward questions here: what is the purpose of unemployment insurance and how should it apply to adjunct faculty? The issues of whether adjuncts are exploited and how they are to earn a reasonable living are important in and of themselves, but they are irrelevant to this discussion.

So, would someone with actual knowledge please explain the history and philosophy of unemployment insurance so those of us who are ignorant in this area, such as myself, aren't tempted to spout nonsense. Then could someone try to analyze how unemployment insurance ought to apply to adjunct faculty, keeping in mind the variations in adjuncts' situations.

I have a suggestion for another colloquy: a discussion of why so many people who work in higher education are angry and resentful towards each other and towards higher education in general. Or perhaps more specifically, why so many people who post messages here seem to feel that way. I like my job, I like most of my colleagues, I like most students I meet, and I feel fortunate to be able to do meaningful work in a university environment. My wife works in higher education and when she began to hate her last job and many of her colleagues, she got a new job. I have a hard time understanding why people keep doing what they're doing when they seem to despise their employers, students, and many of their colleagues. I mean this as a serious question, not as a disguised criticism or prescription.

Mr. Nguyen:

Once again, you have failed to answer the very simple question that several other individuals and I have posed to you. What professional credibility do you have to make the assertion that "If you cannot land a full-time job in academe, it's because you didn't earn it"? Moreover, in your latest posting, you appear to contradict this position when you write that community-college "adjuncts are arguably the MOST exploited commodity in all of higher ed." So which is it, Mr. Nguyen? Are part-time faculty exploited or not? You have made some very controversial statements in this discussion forum that we have asked you to clarify. Since you claim to know so much more about this than the rest of us, let's hear what your background is.

You began the discussion with an either/or fallacy: "Anyone who doesn't support my ideas is just out to con the taxpayers." Your submissions have continued to become even more illogical. I am beginning to wonder if they are merely prank postings.

Bill,

There are a number of models for contingent employees (contractors). There are two big categories, W-2 contractors and 1099 contractors. This refers to the form that their income is reported to the IRS. W-2 contractors get a paycheck with taxes and even sometimes benefits deducted. 1099 contractors generally get either a lump sum payment or a series of payments with no taxes deducted. The 1099 contractor is reponsible for paying all of their own taxes in full.

Another factor of the W-2 Contractor's life is that someone is paying unemployment premiums on their pay because they are legally someone's employee. Sometimes the law actually considers them to be employees of the firm that they are contracting for. Vizcaino v. Microsoft is a good example of the case law in that area. And, they are legally entitled to unemployment between contracts. On the other hand, the 1099 contractor is not entitled to unemployment at all. This is becaue they are considered to be an independent business.

I've been in both situations. I've worked in the IT industry as a W-2 contractor, I've also been an Adjunct as both a W-2 and 1099 status. When IT contracts ended, I've collected unemployment between contracts as the law allows. I do have to admit that I've used my teaching to reduce my need for unemployment in the lean years. I teach because it makes me a better IT professional and a more articulate advocate for my main profession. After all of the rants, insults, and ad hominem attacks that we have had here, I still think the issue is clear. Adjuncts who work on a W-2 contract status should be treated by the state no differently than the IT people, and the fishermen, and the construction workers who all draw unemployment in the lean months. Adjuncts who are out there on 1099 status need to sharpen their business management skills because they have entered the world of entrepreneurship for better or for worse.

Finally, some have mentioned the glut of PhD's, particularly in the Humanities. Right now that is true. But, I know of one community college district near Really Big U where I work that will have a 40% turnover in the next two to three years because of retirements. There will be more oppportunities.

Twenty-two years total at thirteen insts. of higher learning. I spent the first ten (yes, TEN) as an adjunct while finishing the dissertation and then plying my wares on the market. Then five years on the tenure track. Yes, my first ten years were given a whole year's worth of credit toward tenure in my first full time job. Five years as an associate professor at a private college--the last three of those as an asst. dean. Yes, Ms Zimbleman, if you must know, if it means anything to you and your silly demands to know whereof I speak, I've been on both sides of the interview table/hotel queen bed/hotel couch. I NEVER hired adjuncts--or recommended their hire--who taught for the money because there just wasn't any for them (beyond the crumbs I already mentioned), try as I might to increase their wages. Teaching is not about the money. If it were, there would be one hell of a lot more better teachers in the profession than there are today. I left the "profession" a few years later for personal reasons, not the least of which involved my realizing a small fortune on certain investments I'd made. I never left teaching, though, because I love it.

Now that you know the irrelevant details of my bg, Ms Z, shall we turn to yours? Are you one of those faculty, Ms Z, who turned to CC teaching because you couldn't land a job at four-year or research inst? Your cheery little columns do little to mask the reality that you turned to CC teaching as an ALTERNATIVE career to a university career because you simply could not land a job there, am I not correct? Do you lie to "in-house" candidates, telling them after years of dedicated teaching that "you're a shoo-in for the job because we all just love you," and then exchange awkward greetings or avoid contact altogether when your search committee goes for the other candidate with the "fresh" ideas? Do you love your 5/5 or 3/3/3 teaching load? "It's an obsession, not a profession"-- is that how you rationalize the drudgery? Would you leave for a slightly higher paying job with a much lighter teaching load teaching far fewer students per class and NO remedial courses? Would you do that, Ms Z? Please. Don't patronize me. Do you feel good that you can make comments to job candidates fresh out of grad school such as "I hope you don't have any plans to do any scholarship because you won't have time to scratch your ass with this teaching load"? What do YOU tell adjuncts, Ms Z? "Hang in there. Salary increases are on the way!"? Or do you tell them things like "I'm sorry, but if we gave you that other class that just came open, why, you'd then be eligible for half benefits. We're just goping to have to cancel it. But we love the work you're doing for us!"

Or will you say that YOUR institution does not use adjunct labor because it so exploitative? Or that YOUR institution only hires adjuncts to whom you can offer a full load of classes for a year and thus benefits? Would such models of morality represent the changing trend in education, or an anamolous example? I'll wager that the adjuncts at your own institution would not think twice about taking unemployment benefits over the summer even with full benefits and a contract for employment for the following year. You paint a lot of rosy pictures, Ms Z, but they are of the imaginary sort.

I'm tired of the whining I hear from recent grads who cannot land fulltime jobs though they've secured multiple job interviews and made several short short lists (cf, virtually ALL theonline First Person essays on the topic). It's always somebody else's fault--a pig-headed committee, a loose cannon on the search committee, "they just didn't take the time to understand my work," "they failed to read between the lines I fed them," "Woe is me! Nobody understands." Then, lo and behold, a year or two or three later, they land a job and within a year of their experience, they're complaining about the "lousy" crop of candidates. Please.

Thanks to those who pointed out that fighting is never so cruel and bloody as in academia (except perhaps in current presidential attack politics). Perhaps reasonable dialogue has been rendered obsolete by call-in radio shows, reality television, or other venues that thrill at negativity. Actually, when I think about it, most of my professors in undergraduate and graduate school hated each other. I had to tiptoe around to my thesis committee members because none of them would be in the same room together.

For that matter, the tenured faculty at colleges where I've been a student or instructor have also most often treated students and each other with disdain and disrespect. And I even notice at my current college that faculty do not make eye contact or greet each other. It's a very odd culture, academia. I always tell my students to avoid it at any cost.

I teach because I enjoy watching students progress from uncertain writers and less than logical thinkers into more articulate citizens. I also stress mutual respect between students even when engaged in argument. I guess, as some here have suggested, I'm stupid or inadequate because I didn't enter a field where I would have earned more. I didn't graduate anywhere near the bottom of the class, as one writer suggests, but the humanities nerd doesn't necessarily "get" money. I've also published extensively, but for an adjunct, that doesn't matter. We're not "promoted" even if we've published more than all the tenured faculty put together. In this state, tenure's a "track," and you're either on it from the start, or you're not. I've done both, as someone else mentioned. I've also been in administration, and in the nineties did make a couple big bucks designing on-line learning material for Pro-
Quest.

I guess it all depends on one's value system. As the calm and reasoned contributors to this forum (you know who you are) suggest, though, as employees who are laid off depending on enrollment, including during summer, we merit unemployment as do other tax-paying workers.

The fact remains that a professor or any other worker at a credible employment unit suppoe to earn a pay when on leave or vacation and the tittle given to such benefit does not really mater.Hence, if the professor is not salaried on vacation a given benefit suppose to be in place for him.
Some other istitutions that values their staff like the bank are in the habit of paying their staff while they are on leave and it is still called salary .i do not see enough reasons why teachers or professors should not receive a pay while on vacation.
From,
Ben.N.Nweke
31 odejobi street,
Agege,Lagos

Here's an interesting question: let's say you are young(ish), ambitious, in love with a particular area of work, and willing to invest much effort to gain expertise in your field of endeavor.

At the same time, you are well aware that your field is cyclical or sporadic in its hiring/employment patterns, increasingly uncertain, and possibly finite in its options. Yet you reasonably believe you have a slim chance at securing full-time, long-term employment, which will release you from these contingencies.

You decide, in light of all the above, to forge ahead.

Have you made a sub-optimal decision? Whether you have or not, do you have any "right" to be supported when, as you slowly discover, you are going to be contiually subject to the cyclicality of your industry (and your paycheck)? Should any external benefits (such as UI) be granted to you in a one-shot deal, or should they be granted annually?

Now, if you are providing a benefit to society that would otherwise be hard to secure, does the answer change? What if academic institutions prefer to have you agree (tacitly, perhaps) to teach annually on a contingent basis but also to be eligible for UI? Should their "vote" count? What if academics managed to convince Americans that we need to have a pool of good teachers - but instead of giving them tenure or tenure-track jobs, let's give them ALL adjunct jobs plus UI? (Ok, sounds crazy, but work with me.) Anything change now?

I ask because I think how we answer these questions truly shapes the way we think about adjuncts' eligibility for benefits.

Mr. Nguyen is, I think, trying to point out that it seems irrational for academics - who have long known the perils of the academic sweepstakes - to sign up for this career track, get stuck in adjuncting jobs (just as so many predecessors do!), and then "ask" for UI to tide them over, year after year. From his vantage (correct me if I am wrong, please!), this seems to be a poor calculation from the outset - resulting in a search for "compensation" after the fact (funded by American taxpayers).

Where I think Mr. Nguyen strays, though, is failing to recognize that there may be an institutionalized preference for this emerging "system" ("adjunctification" plus externally-granted benefits). It is a truism that academic institutions want, need, and depend upon a supply of faculty. Equally evident is that they feel constrained (by budgetary concerns) to increase their use of adjuncts and to minimize their expenditures on adjuncts (shrinking salaries, compelling salary wars among adjuncts that can be a "race to the bottom", waiting until the last moment to see who they can get for the lowest cost, and so on). Surely this means that many institutions would welcome adjuncts gaining eligibility to UI - it is just one less expenditure for them, with a sop to the conscience thrown in ("at least the adjuncts are getting by").

What seems patently unfair, then, is to blame young faculty for choosing to pursue academic careers and eventually turning to such remedies as UI to enable them to continue their careers. Institutions are complicitous, at the very least, in the situation. As, in a sense, are we all: every American family that wants to send a child to college wants (a) good teachers, (b) low tuition, and (c) (for most) the least possible impact on taxes. How do we expect institutions to do this? Well, by hiring adjuncts and turning academic labor into just another short-term contractual labor pool. That seems, irrefutably, to be the status quo.

But if so, Mr. Nguyen, rather than blaming adjuncts for wanting and seeking some measure of compensation, why not see what's happening as a rational solution to a simple economic concern? In cost-benefit terms (and utilitarian terms, I'd add), we can solve a greater welfare problem: give society (and academia) a pool of talented labor, keep education costs down, and keep teachers compensated with skimpy salaries and UI!

(Let me say right now that this is not what I'd advocate as the best possible solution - it's just one way of looking at what has happened as not a grievance but rather an outcome of sorts.)

I find it interesting (and a bit sad), by the way, that this might be a converging point for faculty and administrators alike. But that's another thought for another post.

Best,

(Name removed at author's request)

In addition to your numerous other talents, Mr. Nguyen, you appear to fancy yourself all-knowing about my background. Do you also read Tarot cards and palms as well? I'm afraid that you've made a number of errors, however. Actually, my first full-time, tenure track position was at a university, which I left because I was offered a higher salary at a community college. I find it interesting that you first stated that part-time faculty who do not have a full-time job simply did not "earn" their position. You also argued that part-timers who sign a contract have no right to complain about their working conditions. Now that you are debating an individual (me) who has, according to your own criteria of worthiness, "earned" her keep, you criticize me for working in the community-college system, which according to you, exploits adjuncts. You cannot have it both ways, Mr. Nguyen. You cannot deny adjuncts are exploited and then change your position when it's convenient for you. Are you now willing to concede that adjuncts ARE exploited? Perhaps if you are, we can all move back to the subject that we should be debating--unemployment benefits for adjunct faculty. I support such an initiative. It is unclear to me from your change of heart and recent sensitivity to adjuncts whether you have reconsidered your position on the core issue.

By the way, I am glad you have read my "chirpy" columns, despite the fact that your introducting them into the discussion is another red herring to shift attention from the various inconsistencies you have made in this discussion.
I feel pretty doggone "chirpy" actually, getting paid by the Chronicle to share my experiences of moving from adjunct status to a full-time position. Contrary to your assessment of my life (you make it sound so dreadfully miserable), I am rather happy with what I've accomplished in my career. Community college teaching isn't always a picnic, but I rather enjoy what I do. I find it rather sad, however, that your experiences and "realizing a small fortune on certain investments" have left you so embittered. I certainly hope you don't pass on your disillusionment to your students.

As far as your credibility to evaluate the quality of adjuncts, are you going on record here to say the adjuncts you hired or interviewed who had hopes of getting a full-time job but failed to reach this goal were not as good as the full-time people who worked at your institution? If so, haven't you committed some sort of fraud against the taxpayers by hiring people who weren't good enough to get a full-time job?

If you would like to continue with this sarcastic exchange, I am more than up to the task, as long as the Chronicle is willing to allow the discussion to continue.

Bring it on, Ms Chirp!
I never once felt "exploited" in my ten years as an adjunct. I used that time to MY benefit just as I knew the various colleges for whom I worked had NO expectations of me other than that I teach well. If adjuncts understood what they were getting into in accepting such positions, perhaps they wouldn't feel so betrayed when classes are unavailable the following year. They are told UP FRONT that their positions are temporary. They are made NO gaurantees that their positions will lead to fulltime hires (though they might be lead to believe so by chirpy, chippy online columnists). "Embittered"? No. Free to accept the teaching assignments I want when I want? You bet. Does that make me the exception to the adjunct rule? Only if you're foolish enough to think that you can support yourself indefinitely on adjunct work. A fellow adjunct in a Philosophy dept. who had been there for over ten years--he was well into his forties and had given up applying to fulltime jobs after his sixth fruitless year-- is always, as he puts it, one quarter away from moving back with his parents. I cannot imagine living with such anxiety for one year let alone ten plus.
"Get out, man! Get out!"
"I can't," he replies. "I can't do anything else."
"You mean you WON'T."
"I'm too used to the academic schedule and the time off."
"Why, then, you deserve UI benefits!" NOT!

What do you tell the hangers-on, Ms Zimbleman? "Oh, why I just wrote a column for the Chronicle entitled 'Hanging in There.' Why don't you read it? And then read my fluff piece on 'The Ideal Community College Interview: (Hint: Don't Mention Research Agendas! Hee-hee!).' By the way, we just love the work you're doing for us! You're our in-house candidate for the next job opening! Stay awhile."

My god! Isn't it bad enough that we coddle our students? Now we want to make adjuncts feel "valued" and "inclusive"? More liberalized tripe, I say. If you are paid to teach, then teach. If the pay isn''t suitable to you, then go someplace else where it is. We can see that the generation of entitled brats is coming of age. Our educational system is stretched far too thin to coddle every inconceivable need. Grow up and join the real world, you whiners! Nobody forced you to get a Ph.D. and nobody forced you to take an adjunct position. You chose it. You live with it, or else move on!

Ms Zimbleman,
Before you throw down the gauntlet to Mr. Nguyen, might I suggest a careful comparative reading between his earlier posts and his most recent ones? I've noticed significant discrepancies in style, expression, basic syntax between the first couple of posts and his later ramblings. My suspicion, Ms Zimbleman, is that you, and others, have been duped by a "faux" Carl Nguyen. Am I right Carl(s)?

The world is right again. Molly found a way to trash liberals! I'm not sure what her comments have to do with this topic, though, which seems to have devolved to "we're being exploited and want someone to give us more money" vs. "you're a bunch of loser whiners who should shut up and do something else if you don't like it." I have a couple of questions. Many of these messages seem to treat unemployment insurance as an entitlement, a government benefit, or an employer provided benefit. I always thought of it as a form of insurance, a way to share risk. Sorry for my ignorance, but could someone clarify just how unemployment insurance works? Who pays for it and what risk is it supposed to spread? I imagine the specifics vary from state to state, but how does this work generally? It seems that if we could get through the vitriol, red herrings, and general silliness in this discussion, there are substantive and complicated issues here. I have a hard time reaching conclusions because I don't have a good understanding of unemployment benefits.

If you read one of my earlier postings, you will note I suggested that "Carl" may be a fraud--or simply posting as a prank. That would definitely explain the numerous lapses in logic and change of position that I've observed. At any rate, at this point, it is becoming kind of fun just to read what outrageous statements he/they will make next. It's kind of like gawking at the scene of an accident, I suppose--a less-than-positive characteristic of human nature.

One thing that has come out in these various posts is that there are several competing issues here:
*A university system that hires several adjuncts rather than fewer full-time faculty. This is the same way Burger King operates (tons of part-time employees to save on benefits). Regardless of whether or not an ajundct was "forced" to take this job - do we want our schools this way? Is this good for the students?
*A huge number of phds for a small number of slots for full-time work, especially if we only consider tenure-track positions. So we have a large number of unemployed - or underemployed - phds who are used to doing well and many of whom are shocked that they weren't snapped up by higher level institutions for greater jobs [my point being that even if adjuncts were entitled to unemployment, I doubt they would be pleased with their jobs overall].

There are way more problems with this system than the unemployment eligibility issue. They include the McEducation style of depending on part-timers, the unrealistic expectations of those who want to work in the university system (which perhaps relates to the system itself that may have led them to believe they would become a prof at Big Ivy), and the abuse (by at least some) of the welfare system.

It is a shame that this forum for serious consideration of an issue that is very important to many people has become focused on one personage. I think we should try to resist letting this happen here and in other colloqies.

Robert Walz, Ph.D.

Anon, I like your analogy between the modern university system and McDonalds. Adjuncts are paid a similar rate for services, I believe. However, the analogy does break down at a crucial point: the workers at McDonald's would be eligible for unemployment compensation if they were to find themselves out of work; adjuncts, as we know, would not be eligible.

I wonder when American universities will begin outsourcing distance education to other countries--perhaps they already do.

One semester when I was not able to secure enough classes to pay the rent, I got a job working in a warehouse. The warehouse where I worked was a very large warehouse (a former munitions factory) that stored very large boxes of greeting cards. The workers at the warehouse would use forklifts to get these large boxes down off of shelves and load them onto large trucks. These people worked hard and worked many hours straight. One reason they worked so hard was because they had to work fast. The reason they had to work fast was because the warehouse needed them to load trucks that went to major stores during holiday seasons. The cards had to get to these stores within a very limited period of time. When the holiday drew near, there was no longer any need for greeting cards and therefore no need for warehouse workers. At such times, the workers were laid off. When the workers were laid off, they filed for unemployment compensation. After they filed for unemployment compensatioin, they received unemployment compensation. The end. This is a simple story and is similar to stories about roofers, construction workers, farm workers and others. But for some reason, it is not similar to stories about adjunct college instructors. I like to ponder how long it will be before all college instructors are part time adjuncts and the only full time workers will be the warehouse managers (i.e. administrators). Any guesses?

Robert Walz

If you are so concerned about a name design for such benefits i may say it should be better refered to as VAC-BENEFIT.By this one knows that it is free from the monthly or usual salary /wages earned when the vacation runs over and normal academic activities resumes.

From,
Ben.N.Nweke,
31 odejobi street,
Agege,Lagos.

(Name removed at original author's request),

Who the heck are you? I haven't read such a brilliant analysis ever, anywhere. I know that the practice of many businesses to hire part-time employees without benefits (Microsoft here in Seattle comes to mind) is rife. But I lacked a larger socioeconomic articulation of the issue. You have provided that framework, as you put it.

(By the way, as one writer pointed out, a third of our income as adjuncts goes to taxes. We, too, are taxpayers. And parents.)

Thank you.

Maria Eagle

Brilliant observation, Interested Observer. I too noticed that Mr N's "sentence" (as V. Woolf calls it) has changed. I sort of wonder if the Chronicle doesn't ask someone to start off the discussion with a flame just to get us all agitated. If so, it worked. I'm awed by the bile and attacks against adjuncts on a sort of personal level. My observation over a lifetime in academia (and longer if you count both parents' lifetimes in academia) is that tenure doesn't mean better. It can be the biggest jerks who get tenure because they fit into the system and play the ugly games. I've certainly attended universities, or taught at them, where a certain toxic culture spreads via the hiring practices. I'm sure this applies to any business. Again, amazing to me in this "discussion" is the name-calling and personal attacks. I guess Prof. Mfume would say I prefer "coddling." If coddling means measured respectful dialogue and discussion, yep. That's what I prefer. After a lifetime studying learning and teaching, I would also submit that our students learn better when treated with respect. After all, they are consumers. We are simply the trusted servants who deliver the goods--or don't. If faculty are willing to be as rude to students as in this "discussion," then it's no wonder that our society has become so warlike and ugly. Yeah, bring it on.

Respectfully,

Maria Eagle

You need to get out more, dear. The very idea that we could even find short term, decent paying jobs for the two to three week break is...Carl, it is just nuts. There are no such jobs. Certainly not for the 14,000 plus of us out here.

Why should we be denied unemployment just because we are college teachers? We are no less Americans, no less citizens, no less unemployed than steel workers or secretaries or engineers. We are certainly no less hard working. Our mortgages, power bills, prescription medications, and, yes, property taxes, do not stop just because our contracts do.

Where is the logic in expecting employees to survive without any compensation at all until the whim of the employer calls us back?

Why should teachers be singled out to either accept poverty wages, uncertainty, weeks without pay...why should we, of all Americans, be expected to either go hungry...or to get out of the profession?

Is it really better to have half (or more) of the college classes taught by instructors who are worried, uncertain of their future, and behind on the mortgage? Is it really better to have American families where the parent(s) are working 50 to 60 to 70 hour weeks, either with a "full time" job plus adjuncting, or adjuncting all over the map to get enough classes?

There is more to this than us. The measure of a country may very well be in the way it treats its teachers. The way we are treated may forshadow the lives of our students. I, for one, would not want to imagine that all of my hard work teaching would result in my students having work lives like mine.

Demetria

Anon,

Unemployment (or Unenjoyment as my marine engineer husband used to call it) is not welfare! Welfare is a loaded term implying individuals who exploit the system. I don't accept that implication.

Your other points are excellent and accurate.

Those who suggest that adjuncts (or any part-time workers) coast by on "vacation" by applying for UI, please explain how $128.00/week affords one a vacation?

Maybe people are thinking of Workers Compensation, which is funded by the employer, and designed as a way to protect employers from being sued individually by injured workers. Workers Compensation pays about 80% of the former salary.

Even those who earn the maximum UI compensation can't live on it. It's designed to tide over those in professions which have periodic layoffs at no fault of the employee. For example, in the Pacific Northwest, many carpenters are laid off during winter because some kinds of building cannot be performed when it's raining. For adjuncts, the few classes offered during summer which result in many of us having insufficient enrollment in our classes (or our enrollment going to tenured faculty) constitute a seasonal layoff.

If single heads of household, most of us could not rely on UI to survive layoffs. One person scornfully asked if she should serve espresso during layoffs. Well, yes. My college graduate children who are barristas make more than I do teaching college. Maybe, as (Name removed at original author's request) says, we should all be adjuncts, and our students should pay us tips for charm and good service. If so, some of the posters to this list would be out of work.

Maria Eagle

Professor,

I agree 100% with your statement. Thanks for pointing out the need for civil dialogue so succinctly. I do note that you're one of the few professors in this forum who deems UI a serious issue. Many seem to use the opportunity to denigrate adjuncts. Many adjuncts have masters degrees. We're not eligible for tenure track in most schools.

Thanks again.

Cordially,

Maria Eagle, MA

Carl,

Call me Pollyanna if you will, but I cannot believe that you and I would have this degree of contempt for one another if we knew each other personally. The psychologist who posted here suggested that the discussion has gotten too negative, and I agree with him. Therefore, allow me to extend an olive branch. I hope that we can get back on track with the unemployment compensation issue, but first let me answer your questions from the last post.

You asked me what I "tell hangers-on" at the community colleges where I work. I presume you mean adjuncts hoping to get a full-time job. I can only share my own experiences and what worked for me. I worked as an adjunct at a cc for two years and then got offered a full-time, tenure track position at a university. Then, a year later, I was hired in a full-time staff/teaching position at the same community college where I worked part-time. The salary I was offered was higher than I was earning at the university. Then, two years later, my duties became exclusively instructional, and I subsequently earned tenure. In other words, I worked my way up. Then, when I moved here to the Midwest to get married, I was able to land full-time cc positions fairly easily. Why was this the case? I can only speculate that my experience as a full-time faculty member--including the requisite community service, committee experience, etc.--made me an attractive candidate. I had no special inside track or anyone pulling strings for me. I came from a working class family, with parents who did not finish high school. I have indeed come a long way, given my background. So yes, I am optimistic that people can control their own academic employment destinies to a certain degree. If that makes me perky or chirpy, so be it.

That said, since I was one, I feel a great deal of compassion for adjuncts. I am not oblivious to the fact that getting full-time work is extremely difficult. I respect their dedication despite the fact that they are paid a fraction of what full-time instructors are paid. I fully support equal pay for equal work. If an adjunct has as many years of experience as I have and teaches half as many courses as I teach, I belive he/she should be paid half as much as I earn. Someone else in this discussion said that adjuncts should be given priority when a full-time position comes open. I support that idea as well. In fact, my guess is that many smaller community colleges do hire their own people. That was the case with me, and I have observed it at other institutions as well.

Moreover, I believe that if institutions cannot afford to pay adjuncts on the same pay level as full-timers, then they should eliminate part-time help completely and only offer courses taught by full-timers. This would eliminate a lot of classes, but I also believe we have an ethical obligation to compensate educators as though we value education. I am excited to hear that many pro-adjunct initiatives are gaining momentum across the country. I hope the unemployment issue is also successful.

These are merely my views from a moral and ethical standpoint. I cannot claim to have any knowledge of how all of this will impact colleges and universities fiscally or how much this will impact tuition. I do know that people are complaining about how much tuition is going up all across the country, despite the widespread use of contigent faculty. Apparently, administrative costs/salaries are on the rise, so perhaps this is something to scrutinize closely.

The colloquy between Zimbleman and Nguyen should most definitely continue unabated because it IS the heart of the problem. Too many adjuncts act like little children because they think they are oh so abused. Dana Zimbleman's views are so far beyond reality that, under other circumstances, they would be funny.

Adjuncts need to face reality. Adjuncts need to get into the real world. People like Dana NEED to be rebuked because they are part of the problem rather than part of the solution.

Carl Nguyen's viewpoint is more akin to reality. He probably has a lot of industrial experience. Maybe that's why people like Dana are so uptight about his realistic remarks. People like Dana feel threatened by the truth.

People need to hear both sides of this argument. You, Walz are just trying to stifle the debate...

You know, I'm always saying the same thing about those tiresome children who work in sweat shops in third world (or worlds, as W calls them) counrties. Why the heck don't they stop their whining and go out and find something else to do if they don't like working 12 hours a day, 7 days a week? If they would go to school like they are supposed to, instead of being money-grubbing urchins, everyone would be better off. I blame their parents for not giving them allowances to buy their toys and candy.

Around the corner from where I live are two apartment towers called Manhattan Plaza. These towers were built by the government primarily for performing artists: actors, writiers, musicians, etc. Because the state knows that performing artists have wild swings in their earnings, rent is based on a portion of what they earn each year.

Why doesn't the state tell them to give up their dreams and go into fields that provide steady income? Because they realize that peolpe need to follow their talents and natures, perhaps, and are therefore willing to subsidize them? If it is acceptable for the government to do so for artists, then why not for academics?

It's not a subsidy. That's the point that y'all seem to be missing. Unemployment insurance is not a subsidy, but insurance -- it comes out of your paycheck when you work, and then if you lose your job, you get payments out of the pool.

Complaining about unemployed people drawing "welfare" is like complaining about people in car wrecks "getting their car fixed for free." The question isn't one of welfare, but of whether or not a contract instructor who is between jobs should be treated any differently from a contract tree-trimmer, actor, mail sorter, mall Santa, or any other seasonal worker who is between jobs.

What's the difference between a musician drawing unemployment between gigs, and an adjunct instructor drawing unemployment between gigs?

Patty,

Haven't you and I sparred before in another discussion? Forgive me, but at this point I'm a little unclear what I am supposed to be "rebuked" for? (I've been "rebuked" for so many things here that I've lost count.) You said I am "part of the problem." Which problem precisely? Are you speaking of unemployment insurance and my views on it? If you're going to level an accusation, at least be clear in what you're talking about. Otherwise, I'll have to rebuke you for rebuking me.

As someone else rightly pointed out, this discussion isn't about me. I have a full-time job, so unemployment compensation does not affect me. I am, however, interested in seeing the working conditions of adjuncts improve and am eager to read a post from someone who REALLY knows about this issue.

You have the unmitigated gall to compare adjunct college professors to sweatshop laborers? You, sir or madam, are severely out of touch. You are just not thinking. And may I ask, since it was demanded of me, wherefore your credentials to make such an idiotic comparison? But please, I'm really not interested. As other posters have noted, this colloquy is not about one person or two. I don't care what your experiential warrant is to make your claims since they can so easily be undermined with my response that you really don't exist, that you are some ghost/prank writer. Short of demanding that you post your cv with pictures and verifiable addresses, there is nothing to show that you are NOT merely a field of indeterminate signifiers, and even then...

"Moreover, I believe that if institutions cannot afford to pay adjuncts on the same pay level as full-timers, then they should eliminate part-time help completely and only offer courses taught by full-timers. This would eliminate a lot of classes, but I also believe we have an ethical obligation to compensate educators as though we value education."

Ms Zimbleman. I can certainly agree with you on the above points. Here, however, is where we break ranks (again): Institutions HAVE no ethics regarding the hiring of cheap labor. They cleave to what's stated in the contracts they offer. Adjuncts ought, also, to understand and cleave to same. They cannot look to the good conscience of "the institution" to take care of them in the long run, as much as the reverse holds and is true--that they can look to the ready availability of adjuncts to shave their budgets. That is the business of running a university. At the administrative level, success is defined by the bottom line always.

So many adjuncts are idealists, and this is not a bad thing, but they are foolish to place that idealism upon, or expect any in return from, a college or university. Such a sentiment is CLEARLY stated in ANY adjunct's contract. I daresay, Ms Zimbleman, you can find that wording easily enough in the contracts of your own beloved adjuncts.

I believe it is unconscionable for graduate programs to accept more graduate students than they can financially support; I think it is foolish for graduate students to enroll in programs without financial support. Where institutions exploit the naivete of graduate students is in accepting their money and then not being accountable in terms of honesty--by NOT informing the grad student about market conditions, by inculcating into them a sense of failure if they do not land jobs at Research 1 universities, by creating an insidious hierarchy among them between the funded and unfunded, by not preparing them for the rigors of the job market, by offering teaching experience to only a few of them, and on and on. They start and finish in poverty only to continue to live in poverty as adjuncts. Ah, but here the romance of the schloar gypsy ends. Bills are due, families must be raised, money must be made. They are not, however, sweatshop workers. They can leave whenever they desire and take their training in critical and analytical thinking, their communication skills, their problem-solving skills to the open market and make ten times that of an adjunct. But no, so many CHOOSE to stay. Can you say that about a sweatshop laborer?

Dear Mr. Nguyen:

Thank you for your response. I found your latest remarks quite eloquent and persuasive. Surprisingly, we do not necessarily disagree on as many issues as might be supposed. For instance, I am in full agreement with you that adjuncts "cannot look to the good conscience of 'the institution' to take care of them in the long run." However, where you and I may disagree is in the approach they should take. You contend they should leave academia and find a job that pays them a living wage, benefits, etc. Certainly, I can see why many would choose this option. However, I think adjuncts should also continue to work within the system and push for reforms. As you correctly pointed out, many graduate schools are doing a poor job preparing students for the realities of the job market. You also effectively characterized the situation when you wrote: "Where institutions exploit the naivete of graduate students is in accepting their money and then not being accountable in terms of honesty."

What happens to companies when they fail to provide services for which they accept money? Consumers can turn to the Better Business Bureau and the civil courts to assist them. If the fraud is widespread, consumers can report abuses to the Federal Trade Commission. In short, we don't tell consumers, "Well, you got conned, too bad for you." Likewise, I think it's high time we hold university administrators accountable for taking students' money in fields where teaching are research are just about the only applications for the degrees, if these same institutions aren't willing to hire. Aren't these institutions committing consumer fraud? After all, on one hand, many institutions fight unionization of graduate students because being a graduate teaching assistant is viewed as an apprenticeship of sorts. Well, why do we need apprentices if there are no jobs for these apprentices to fill?

I submit that it's time for adjuncts to draw attention to the situation. An effectively waged public relations campaign might be in order, where adjuncts put university administrators on the defensive about rising tuition costs.
Why is tuition going up when the cost of labor is so cheap? Moreover, why are administrative salaries going through the roof at the same time? Perhaps if the higher ups were asked to explain their management practices to the taxpayers, then more full-time jobs might magically materialize. Also, accountability to the people in a particular service area might be a way for adjuncts at the community-college level to draw attention to their situation. I've found that people in the community are often sympathetic to cc teachers and want them to earn a living wage. Many would no doubt be shocked by what their children's English, history, philosophy teachers earn. So public pressure, applied effectively, might be brought to bear on community colleges.

I look forward to continuing the discussion.

I've re-read this interesting discussion, and have a few more thoughts that might be of interest. I'll try to be more succinct - but it's not a forte of mine, I'm afraid!

Some commentators have argued that adjuncts should be deemed “independent contractors.” This contention is on strong legal grounds: their employment is typically subject to at-will renewal or termination, their benefits, if any are limited (and usually not long-term), their institutional responsibilities are bounded, and so on.

What follows, however, is quite a different outcome than many here have argued. It is probably valid to argue that adjuncts will not receive the same “rights, protections, compensation, or privileges set aside for their permanent counterparts.” But adjuncts - if characterized correctly as independent contractors - do indeed have certain rights, privileges and so on. (And, as an aside, this has nothing to do with the funding of higher education - it is based in labor law.) Independent contractors can, among other things, draw upon unemployment insurance between employment stints. This “right” exists irrespective of the fact that the independent contractor chose his/her employment with full knowledge, before the fact, that the work would be impermanent (even on an ongoing basis) in nature. UI does not, of course, turn on the “unrealistic expectations” of its beneficiaries.

Another right that may well follow (I say “may” as it hasn't yet been hashed out in the court in the academic context) is, I think, a more helpful one in the long run: independent contractors have consistently been held to own intellectual property (IP) rights in their creative work. In other words, what if adjuncts are independent contractors - why shouldn't they collect a salary per course, have the right to collect UI, and claim IP rights in their courses and related course materials?

Having done some research on this issue, I can say with some confidence that this idea is facing a great deal of resistance from many institutions. Now, I find this interesting: institutions want adjuncts to teach, they don't particularly seem to want adjuncts to collect UI (their policies don't universally promote it), but the minute adjuncts start approaching independent contractor status, institutions flinch - because, qua contractors, adjuncts would own their (potentially marketable, and therefore potentially lucrative) courses and materials. Interesting, isn't it?

The contradiction is, I think, revealing. Many academics seem to deplore the idea that adjuncts have the “temerity” to ask to be considered anything more than hired hands - that is, contractors who teach on a per-course basis, with no long-term rights/privileges, but also no recourse to tide-over measures such as UI. Yet many, many academics (and administrators) are equally outraged or dismissive when adjuncts seek to claim a key feature of their independent contractor role - the right to IP ownership in their work.

My question to you all is this: if adjuncts qua independent contractors can claim IP rights in their courses and coursework, and can eventually monetize their courses, would you be fine with that outcome? What if the consequences were detrimental to the academic world overall? (I leave it to you to imagine some potential consequences.) And, in line with this discussion, what if adjuncts relinquish their drive to gain institutional support for their claims to UI? If that's too much of a subsidy, why shouldn't we substitute rights in the courses they teach? Or would that be an “entitlement,” too?

(Name removed at author's request)

P.S. Maria Eagle, thank you so much for your kind words. I am

Unemployed or just out of work?