next »

[jdougher]

I googled "adjunct salaries in xxxx (city)" and came across this old article from 2008 on the unionization efforts of adjuncts at Mongtomery College:

http://ww2.gazette.net/stories/031208/montnew44129_32356.shtml

I hope the adjunct situation has changed since then, but I have my doubts. Are adjuncts in some places now unionized?

The last time I looked into adjunct salaries, I was so insulted that I ended up wondering why adjuncts don't simply take a page from the playbook of Nancy Reagan and "just say no." One could have indeed made more money working in a fast-food joint or at Starbucks, with better benefits.

What's the adjunct situation like now? Any better than 2008, when the article referenced above was written? I see from the Chronicle's "salary locator" on this site that professors typically make three times what an instructor does--and probably for much less work. I assume those "instructors" are adjuncts?

[dr_alcott]

Adjuncts at my school, and a number of others, are unionized.

I see from the Chronicle's "salary locator" on this site that professors typically make three times what an instructor does--and probably for much less work.

Huh? Where I am, FT professors do a lot more curriculum development than most adjuncts--certainly not less.

[zharkov]

In the CHE/AAUP data set, instructor refers to a full time faculty member below the rank of assistant professor.  Some universities call these people lecturers.  Typically, such jobs are for those without the terminal degree in the field, so perhaps someone with a master's who teaches undergrad courses, where the terminal degree is a doctorate.  They usually teach, but often not required to do the service and research of those of higher rank.

Adjuncts are unionized at some schools, either as part of the full timers union, or in a separate union.

[zuzu_]

Adjuncts at my school, and a number of others, are unionized.

I see from the Chronicle's "salary locator" on this site that professors typically make three times what an instructor does--and probably for much less work.

Huh? Where I am, FT professors do a lot more curriculum development than most adjuncts--certainly not less.

That is probably true, but I am guessing the OP is probably talking about courseload.

For example, when I was an adjunct, I might have taught six sections of composition each semester (at two different schools) while making $20,000 for the year.

Now that I am full-timer, I make $50,000/year for teaching fewer courses.

[see_wolf]

At my college, we (adjuncts) are in the faculty union.

You go right ahead and take that job at McD's... that will open another section for me to teach.  I want to work in academics, and will take my lumps with this choice.  "Just say no"? There will always be someone willing to work for the adjunct salary.

[kaysixteen]

And, because grad schools will (almost certainly) continue to churn out numerous PhDs glutting the market in most disciplines, many of whom have little practical professional employment options outside of academia, unis will still have the ability to exploit adjuncts as though they were migrant farmworkers.

[pixelvainia]

Newly formed union. Administration then made changes affecting several activists and the union was able to get them reversed. This cost the college thousands. Maybe they thought we would throw our hands up and say "OH NO! We should never have unionized!"

Adjuncts, you can do it!

[zz8435]

People enter academia primarily for the non-monetary benefits (if you're smart enough to get a PhD, you're smart enough to make much more money in business than you'll ever make working for a university), and entering requires a huge investment of time, effort and resources. Given this and the massive oversupply of new PhDs in certain fields, it's very difficult to create a viable union model for adjuncts. I spent a month in Buenos Aires working on a project, and at UBA, by far the best university in the country, over half the courses are taught by volunteers -- they literally work for free. There's always someone willing to endure a little more humiliation or accept a slightly lower salary just to be part of the game.

[king_ghidorah]

There's always someone willing to endure a little more humiliation or accept a slightly lower salary just to be part of the game.

This.

We have adjuncts who have not and will not get a raise, a promotion, or be allowed to teach anything other than entry level courses; they will never have their own office or have any significant power within the department or school.  They do not even know if they will have a job next semester.  And, the longer they stay at their low-paying job, the less likely they are to move into the TT ranks (something which most full-timers are desperate for).  Morale is not good.

Then there are those who are part-time parents or spouses of professors or spouses of people who make money, or sometimes they are people who simply like teaching two or three classes a semester.  They are not concerned with unionization.

Mostly I think that, in the humanities anyway, there are just too many of us.  Paradoxically, our numbers mean we are easily replaceable, and this does not necessarily instill a fighting spirit.  

[monsterx]

There are a probably a few reasons why adjuncts aren't unionized:

1. in the US, it is relatively hard to organize a union and get it recognized - the process involves a high  commitment from a union and from the activists involved in the union drive

2. many adjuncts see their position as transitional, or it is not their only source of income - this reduces willingness to invest the kind of effort needed to organize.   Those who are involved in adjunct work for the full time and long-term clearly would benefit from unionization, but for those with only marginal attachment to the job it is just not worth the effort of establishing a union (though if there were one already established, that would change the calculus)

3. adjuncts' position is relatively precarious - they can be got rid of easy.  This means the risks of organizing are high.   It is illegal to dismiss workers for union activities (although many employers do anyway), but for contract workers, you don't even have to violate the law, just don't issue a new contract in the next term.  If management can get rid of the committed activists, the union drive will be crippled.

As a result, adjuncts generally only end up unionized if the rest of the faculty is unionized.  Then, it can be highly beneficial for the regular faculty to include adjuncts and promote their welfare - otherwise, they become a threat to the standards of the regular faculty.  But independant adjunct unions are hard to establish, and will be plagued by the instability of their membership. 

[zz8435]

There's also a highly oppositional relationship at many campuses between the adjuncts and the regular faculty. People with normal full-time positions feel threatened by the increasing reliance on adjuncts, and they feel superior to the adjuncts themselves, so it can be very difficult to get faculty unions or individual faculty to go to bat for them.

[voxprincipalis]

There's also a highly oppositional relationship at many campuses between the adjuncts and the regular faculty. People with normal full-time positions feel threatened by the increasing reliance on adjuncts, and they feel superior to the adjuncts themselves

This is an offensive and untrue generalization to both adjuncts and full-time professors, especially in regards to the words "regular," "normal," "threatened," and "superior."

From your posts so far, I gather that throwing around unsupported generalizations without data is kind of a hobby of yours. The nature of the population of the fora probably makes it a bad place to practice such a hobby.

VP

[pixelvainia]

There are a probably a few reasons why adjuncts aren't unionized:
2. many adjuncts see their position as transitional, or it is not their only source of income - this reduces willingness to invest the kind of effort needed to organize.   Those who are involved in adjunct work for the full time and long-term clearly would benefit from unionization, but for those with only marginal attachment to the job it is just not worth the effort of establishing a union (though if there were one already established, that would change the calculus)

My experience here is the opposite. The adjuncts have been here for years, and the union drive (signing up for support) was completed quickly.

3. adjuncts' position is relatively precarious - they can be got rid of easy.  This means the risks of organizing are high.   It is illegal to dismiss workers for union activities (although many employers do anyway), but for contract workers, you don't even have to violate the law, just don't issue a new contract in the next term.  If management can get rid of the committed activists, the union drive will be crippled.

I was surprised (pleased too) to find that workers non-renewed after the union began working were able to get rehired through an unfair labor practice claim.
But I absolutely agree that administrators will retaliate. They fear unions. Our chancellor is a liberal politician. Makes no difference.

[spinnaker]

People enter academia primarily for the non-monetary benefits (if you're smart enough to get a PhD, you're smart enough to make much more money in business than you'll ever make working for a university), and entering requires a huge investment of time, effort and resources. Given this and the massive oversupply of new PhDs in certain fields, it's very difficult to create a viable union model for adjuncts.

I don't get this. It seems to me if you've spent a lot of money and time getting yourself educated, and then the best you can get is today's average adjunct gig, then you're madder than a hornet.

Most of the posts here discuss why forming adjunct unions has been slow and difficult. We do not know what the future will bring though.

[janewales]

There's also a highly oppositional relationship at many campuses between the adjuncts and the regular faculty. People with normal full-time positions feel threatened by the increasing reliance on adjuncts, and they feel superior to the adjuncts themselves, so it can be very difficult to get faculty unions or individual faculty to go to bat for them.

Adjuncts are part of the same bargaining unit on our campus as the tenure-track faculty. They're on the executive of the association, along with tenure-track people. They are better treated than at many places (right of reappointment, a decent pay scale, some research funds, good benefits). However, their situation is still far from ideal, so even having an organization is not always enough.