If you have difficulty reading the newsletter, please go to www.patriotreturns.com to see the latest release.

THE
PATRIOT
RETURNS

 

       Vol. 40, No.3                                                 August 01, 2008

 

A REVOLT OF THE MASSES

 

Please Note: The Patriot Returns wishes to enlighten the membership regarding the PSC leadership's unwillingness to make union resources available to CUNY adjuncts to express their vast array of dissenting opinions on the contract ratification. The Patriot Returns, a firm believer in First Amendment Rights, provides the following to inform CUNY faculty as to how adjuncts feel about the recently negotiated contract.

We have attempted to include as many opinions as were brought to our attention by current disgruntled adjuncts (including the leadership's attitude towards those pesky "Adjunct Complainers" a label which was callously applied to them by one of the VERY well known PSC officers). Omissions, if any, were not intentional. Names are withheld for privacy.

The following messages represent discussions by PSC members following the Delegate Assembly meeting at which the DA voted to send the new contract to the members for ratification.

(We apologize in advance for any formatting errors that might have occurred during the transcription.)

 

******A LETTER FROM ONE OF OUR DEAR LEADER'S OFFICERS******

(Name Withheld),

I naively thought that this had died down until I saw (Name Withheld)'s message yesterday. Have you been sending all these missives from the adjunct complainers to BB and co.?  My understanding from (Name Withheld) (over a week ago) was that she was going to write a response to all of this, defending you, (Name Withheld) and (Name Withheld).  Maybe something should come from the entire bargaining team.  Before I contact BB I want to know if you got to talk about this at AFT and if there are any plans in the works.  And, of course, what, if anything you'd like done. I am getting increasingly irritated by both the tone and content of these messages.

[Ed: Emphasis by editor]

***************************************************************

 

 

OUTRAGED ADJUNCTS SPEAK OUT AGAINST THE CONTRACT

 

[Message]

Vote No on the Proposed Contract!

Many adjuncts, part-timers, graduate students and full-timers are asking you to join in voting NO on the proposed PSC-CUNY contract settlement. Why?

A contract that increases inequality at CUNY is bad for full-timers, part-timers, our union and our students. Every year CUNY becomes a more unequal place to work and to study. The two-tier labor system undermines academic freedom and weakens the union and the university. Yet now, once again, we are being asked to vote for a contract that makes no progress at all in transforming this labor system. Instead, the contract perpetuates it and leaves more than half of the faculty without job security, a living wage, and adequate health coverage.

On Job Security.  The proposed contract makes no progress at all on the key contract goal of job security for adjuncts and other part-timers. For the second contract in a row, this was declared a major priority, but we still have no certificates of continuous employment, no three-year appointments, no two-year appointments nothing. Adjuncts, CLIP teachers and others can teach semester after semester, year after year, with no guarantee of future employment and no requirement that reasons be given for non-reappointment. This leaves half the teaching staff permanently vulnerable and undermines academic freedom throughout the university!

On Salaries.  This settlement would actually widen pay inequity between part-timers and full-timers. The small equity increase at the top of the adjunct scale is unavailable to most adjuncts, is too small to prevent the salary gap from widening even for those who receive it, and leaves all adjuncts together with CLIP and Continuing Ed instructors without a living wage. An adjunct at the top salary step with 12 years of service, who managed to teach seven courses a year, would find his/her salary going from $23, 800 to $27,700 over the life of the contract! Allowing CUNY to pay poverty wages to half the faculty serves neither the full-time nor the part-time staff. Reducing the pay differential between full-time and part-time staff lessens the economic advantage that accrues to CUNY from its reliance on talented, but grossly underpaid part-timers. It strengthens the fight for more full-time lines and restoration of competitive salaries. Until the salary gap between part-time and full-time personnel is eliminated, the position of both groups will continue to suffer.

On Health Care.  Health care was another declared priority for these contract negotiations. We are now being told that coverage for eligible doctoral students may be forthcoming and that the PSC leadership hopes adjuncts will eventually get on the City health plan. We are being rushed to approve a settlement which did not solve these critical issues. Adjuncts remain at constant risk of losing their health insurance if a course is cancelled, if they get ill and can't teach, or if they retire, while others, such as masters students, will remain without health coverage.

CUNY management obviously believes it can continue to make up for the chronic underfunding of the university by depending on a large contingent of grossly undercompensated adjuncts, graduate students and part-time personnel. This must come to an end! We urge full-time personnel to recognize that the terrible conditions adjunct faculty work under weaken their own bargaining power, and to further our common cause by voting against the proposed contract.  Adjuncts, part-time faculty, graduate students, full-time faculty, HEOs, CLTs and all who make the university run yet are not given the respect they deserve need to unite on the principle that an injury to one is an injury to all. Let's show CUNY management that a contract that fails to tackle the two-tier labor system and address the core needs of half the faculty is unacceptable!

Our union must aim to uproot the two-tier labor system of structural inequality along with addressing pressing workload issues for both faculty and staff. Clearly, this will require a major struggle to defend public education in the interests of all faculty, staff and students, in close alliance with key sectors of labor and the working people of New York City whose sons and daughters attend CUNY. Our campaign for a "No" vote on this contract is a way to make clear that a real fight against inequality can no longer be postponed and is a step in mobilizing for that fight. This is the time to increase the pressure. Get active in the fight for equity at CUNY!

Concerned Adjuncts, Part-timers and Graduate Students

***************************************************************

[Message]

(Name Withheld)

PLEASE LET'S HEAR FROM YOU!

AN ORGANIZED AND RESPONSIBLE OPPOSITION TO THE TERMS OF THE PROPOSED CONTRACT HAS EMERGED.

IT IS BUILDING GRAD STUDENT & ADJUNCT ENGAGEMENT WHICH COULD HARDLY  BE FOUND WHEN PSC NEGOTIATING POLICY WAS SEEN AS SO LIMITED IN ITS COMMITMENT TO GS / ADJ REALITIES THAT MEMBERS OF THESE GROUPS TURNED AWAY FROM APPEALS TO MOBILIZE WITHIN THAT FRAMEWORK.

IT IS CALLING FOR A STRONGER, MORE ACTIVE UNION OF ALL THE MEMBERS, AND INITIATING THE STUDY-ACTION WORK AGAINST THE SCANDAL OF TRUSTEES WITHOUT INDEPENDENCE , AND WITH HORRIFIC RECORDS.

BUT IT IS AS YET UNRECOGNIZED, TREATED AS IF IT WERE 'ISOLATED INDIVIDUALS'

THIS IS LIKE A TWENTIETH CENTURY 'TELEGRAM', ASKING YOU TO LEND YOUR VOICE TO CALL ON THE EXECUTIVE LEADERSHIP OF THIS 'STAFF CONGRESS' (OR MORE HOPEFULLY UNION OF THE MEMBERS) TO PROMPTLY ALLOCATE CONTRACT ISSUE WEBSPACE, AND WORK OUT REASONABLE MAILING RIGHTS TO THIS EFFORT LED BY KNOWN DA ELECTED OFFICIALS AND THEIR COLLEAGUES.

AS SEASONED ACTIVISTS, YOU AND WE KNOW THAT A SIGNIFICANT NO VOTE WILL STRENGTHEN THE HAND OF OUR NEGOTIATORS, NOT 'WEAKEN THE UNION ' WHICH HAS BEEN FOR SO LONG SO DEEPLY DIVIDED INTO 'HAVES & HAVE NOTS'.

GIVE US & YOURSELVES A BETTER CHANCE; LETS ACCEPT OUR DIFFERENCES, AND TAKE THE RISKS WE HAVE TO TAKE TO REALLY STRENGTHEN OUR UNION.

AFTER ALL, A UNION SEPARATED FROM ITS MEMBERS IS A SITUATION TO BE AVOIDED BY DIRECT AND TO THE POINT ACTION.

CAN YOU FEEL THE LOVE IN THESE REMARKS?

IF SO, THEN...
(Name Withheld)

***************************************************************

[Message]

(Name Withheld)

(Name withheld) really has a brilliant and totally creative concept here. Let's mobilize with this one! (Name Withheld)

***************************************************************

[Message]

(Name Withheld)

Subject: Re: Statement on the Contract by Concerned Adjuncts

(Name Withheld)'s point is appreciated and valuable. It's true that the purpose of using part-timers is to pay them less -- from the employer's point of view. But look at it from a different point of view -- from OUR point of view as workers.

CUNY can be seen a "consumer" of our work. Look at the case of a consumer in a real-world business example such as a gym. It would cost me LESS to sign up for a gym membership if I paid a whole year up front (say, $1000 for twelve months), and it would cost me MORE if I just paid session by session (say, $25 per day). In this case, I am a consumer of the gym's work (managing, cleaning, maintaining, etc), just like CUNY is a consumer of faculty's work. The gym staff wouldn't mind charging me less if I paid a whole year up fr ont because then its income would be more predictable and stable. On the other hand, if I wanted to reserve the "flexibility" of paying session to session (e.g., whenever I felt like working out), then the gym (the workers) would need to charge me (the "boss") more for its "labor" in order to make up for the unpredictability of my payments. How could it stay in business otherwise? Regardless of my whims it still needs to pay rent and upkeep and so forth.

By this logic, an argument could be made that adjuncts should actually demand MORE pay than full-timers, not less, because they are giving the management NOT ONLY labor BUT ALSO the flexibility of getting the services it wants whenever it feels like it (which is exactly what the BOT keeps saying it wants: a labor force that's flexible, nimble, etc.) Adjuncts sacrifice a stable income in order to give CUNY the work when CUNY feels like employing them, just like a gym sacrifices a stable one- or two-year membership fee upfront in order to be available to the gym member whenever that gym member feels like showing up to use the facilities.

Our point of view as workers is based on very practical, economic needs, meaning the "economy" of both money and time, as well as the psychological "economies" of job security and academic freedom. Management's point of view is also perfectly logical but it is based on br> the "need" to get more out of us and pay less. Our job is to fight and educate for our point of view -- not to pretend the management's point of view doesn't exist, but to let THEM decide how or whether to express it. It's not our job to worry about whether they're being treated fairly in all this -- they mobilize huge amounts of money to do that for themselves.


Of course (Name Withheld)'s is correct that such a deep contradiction cannot be resolved with one contract or even one union, but requires broader social movement. But I think most of us spend time organizing because we believe that such movement must start locally, with ourselves, not with politicians or someone else in another industry or another country. Lorraine is also correct that tenured or tenure-track FT faculty are expected to do a lot of things that adjuncts don't have to worry about, like research, service, etc. As a member of the group that met this year to fight for decreased workload, this difference is pretty clear to me. But the wording of the statement under discussion very powerfully shows in the simplest mathematical terms the deep and shocking difference between how much it costs to pay an adjunct to teach seven courses and how much it costs a full-timer to teach the same number of courses. Maybe that difference itself doesn't account for non-teaching duties, but the difference is still deep. Non-teaching duties can always be recognized or dismissed based on the political climate and the whims of the employer (as someone up for tenure this year I know this from unhappy experience) but the machine of CUNY will always need people to teach courses and will always try to reserve a pool of cheap labor to do that and thereby drag everyone down.

(Name Withheld) LaGuardia CC

***************************************************************

[Message]

(Name Withheld):

(Name Withheld)'s. comments point to a labor system that is and deeply embedded in our social structure. Adjunct labor was the solution used to the fiscal crisis and the increasing enrollment of non-traditional students under open admissions. Changing the whole structure is unlikely to happen unless we are in Huge social movement that can alter the distribution of resources from the war machine to domestic priorities and transform the tax structure on a state and local level. Making incremental gains like a seniority system and more job security are reforms are potentially achievable, but as we have seen require mounting of huge concerted resistance and support from full timers. I want to remind my part time brothers and sisters that teaching, research, and service are required for full time work. There is a very high level of evaluation at every level of work. We cannot measure the work of full timers as only the equivalent of the hours of teaching. What we can do is fight for the best practices, including much higher salaries.

(Name Withheld)

***************************************************************

[Message]

(Name Withheld) writes:

If we could earn the same dollars working part time as someone working full time, I believe we would all be working part time and I'm not referring to just CUNY employees. That would be the case for all employees in this country. Employers, in any business, hire part timers as a cost savings measure. That is exactly what our employer has done with adjuncts. To expect them to
forfeit that right as an employer is ludicrous. The focus should be on benefits and not salary equality, for that will never happen. Is there any industry where part timer earn as much as their full time counterparts?

(Name Withheld)

***************************************************************

[Message]

(Name Withheld)
Subject: Re: Statement on the Contract by Concerned Adjuncts,

"Part-timers"&Graduate Students"

"An adjunct at the top salary step with 12 years of service, who managed to teach seven courses a year, would find his/her salary going from $23,800 to $27,700 over the life of the contract! Allowing CUNY to pay poverty wages to half the faculty serves neither the full-time nor the part-time staff. [...] Until the salary gap between part-time and full-time personnel is eliminated, the position of both groups will continue to suffer."

Jeez.

Whatever one's position on how best to vote, the above is a jarring statement. I thank the people who put in the time and work to write this. I think more such education of full-time faculty will be an essential ingredient to organizing and unleashing the vast potential of our membership's power and begin to make, as I believe (Name Withheld) put it,"the union of our dreams."

(Name Withheld) LaGuardia CC

***************************************************************

[Message]

Hello,

Wanted to present another set of views on the Adjunct/PT debates. Until the July 1 meeting (in my Alternate Delegate role), I was sorta neutral on this issue - not any longer. It was an eye opener!

Voting 'YES', this round is obvious - the outlook on what to do next round is still at play.

Most of all, my fellow tenured full / associate professors & HEOs must vote now and, going forward - silence is no longer golden. Here's why.

REFERENCES: (these views reflect combined input from my CUNY colleagues at several campuses in recent years)


BACKGROUND

Historically, adjuncts came to a University with a career / full time position in place. They were supplementing their profession with some teaching. Getting involved with us brought an added measure of balance and enrichment to their career - they wanted the work and the affiliation with us. At the same time, we needed some coverage in a basic course or a special topic. There was synergy and, symbiosis. This was reflected in their remuneration.


THE PHILOSOPHY WE NEED

The mission of any University is somewhat lost in the 'unionism' unity chant heard on July 1 and its e-mail aftermath. This is NOT so much about union issues - it is the other way around. The long term interests of academia and any University are better served by full time people, with 'reluctant' yet appropriate use of Adjuncts / PTs. Part-timers do not have the same stake in the business as we do. Using them too much waters down what we do. We must hold the line on the number of these positions (reducing them to some degree, perhaps by attrition in the years ahead) while applying continued focus on creating more full time positions to do the work. The proposed contract sustains and perhaps advances those longer term full time University interests. The union executive committee has done their job quite well when we consider the environment (political, economic and social). The stage was set for even more such realistic gains on the next contract including workload reductions.

THE REAL PROBLEM

It is sadly true that throughout most CUNY campuses today there is still more work to be done than people to do that work despite recent personnel gains. We have a ways to go, but not with increases in part-time personnel. Unless the State and society make greater long term monetary commitments to the University other tools include gradual reductions in enrollment and gradual raises in tuition. Direct coordination with UFT & SUNY for contract negotiations is also indicated.

A GUIDE FOR THE PERPLEXED

One ought be flabbergasted by the thought of "adjunct security". The idea of a "secure" part time job (perhaps in any industry) seems like a bit of a contradiction and even somewhat dysfunctional - for both sides. But given the demeanor in the union hall on July 1 and the ensuing e-mail flurry, it may be an indication of where the union might choose to go and, it is the wrong direction. It seems fundamentally wrong that part time workers try to drive a union created by and for full time faculty and full time staff. This approach, over the years, has now gone too far and is becoming very shortsighted and even somewhat parasitic.

Furthermore, if we continue to use too many Adjuncts/ PTs we are 'saying' academically qualified faculty and professionally qualified staff are really not needed. For example, it's hard to see how we can make adjuncts (who are paid primarily for class time/prep/grading) more expensive, than full-time faculty (who are paid for varying combinations of class time/prep/grading, doing research resulting in published articles, writing books/textbooks, attending conferences/making presentations & publishing proceedings, fulfilling editorial roles/performing editorial work, performing service assignments as well as the immense knowledge and skills obtained in acquiring their advanced degrees).


OUR MISSION


More full time people, properly paid and supported with a much smaller yet slightly better paid and supported Adjuncts/PTs is indicated for the well being of any University in the long run. The proposed contract moves us a little closer to restoring balance to the long-standing 'social contract' between society and, the professoriate where our remuneration is high enough to restore intrinsic motivation to its rightful proportion. Adjuncts have regrettably become a force to be reckoned with, within the union. The PSC top brass may understandably have needed to court them when it first sought power and inadvertently created a little monster. Full time people will have to become more vocal within the union once again. Most of all, voting on any matter, can no longer be seen as optional. It probably never was.

REFERENCES: (these views reflect combined input from my CUNY colleagues at many campuses in recent years)

PS: Please feel free to forward this message to the Full & Associate Professors / HEOs & Senior Management at your campus.

(Name Withheld)

***************************************************************

[Message]

I am, as they say like to say on Maury Povich, "150% sure" that the view (Name Withheld) has posted is in fact shared by many of our FT colleagues, but that doesn't make it correct. I think it only points to the need for more intense educational efforts going forward.

CUNY and the State don't care about non-teaching duties; they say they do in order to divide and conquer our members by instilling them with false consciousness, but all that really matters to them is the number of students who can be educated (and by implication, excluded from that education) in order to serve the needs of the economy and the status quo.

Of course WE care about professional standards, advanced training, and research, and of course I agree that we should continue to defend the importance of that dimension of academia from the attacks of people like the ones on the Board of Trustees who, as some have pointed out, aren't even scholars. For example, our leadership is right to emphasize things like support of professional development for adjuncts and so forth. But the other inconvenient truth is that in this economic system, a cheap pool of super-exploited labor is only used to bring everyone down, and the use of "part-time" (a cruel misnomer for so many adjuncts) labor is not going to go away.

The pay issue directly affects how much FT'ers get paid, and the job security issue directly affects academic freedom for everyone who works in academia. To ignore these factors and instead condescend to adjuncts -- "boy, what a monster we've created!" -- evokes the disastrous way the construction unions have excluded minorities, immigrants, and women, thereby enabling the real estate developers to use the resultant growing pool of cheap labor to use against them. I share the concern that our organizing is not at a level where we should vote this contract down right now, but I see that fact as a problem and a challenge, not an indication of the best we can do as a union. I'm not a business or management specialist, but this is my view and I think this is a crucial discussion to have with our members.

***************************************************************

[Message]

(Name Withheld)

Questions:

First, I received an email a week or so ago from human resources saying that health insurance costs were rising and so more money would be taken from paychecks starting in July. I don't think this applied to me but it raised a question - at the Q&A and on the Website, I heard/see nothing that indicates the contract did anything on this issue - did it? Increasing health costs has been central to contract negotiations for other unions since...well a long time. How does this contract address that increasing cost? Will more funds be taken simply as costs increase? (I am guessing this is different from coverage or non coverage of some members).

Second, I love (Name Withheld)s dream - as I wrote earlier, I got my degree thinking I'd be in the dream. I too have heard of the golden age of academia, 'et in arcadia ego' and all that. Forgive my innocence - I've only just joined the delegate assembly - what has this union done about holding the line on adjuncts. I could only find information from the 1990s but on Feb 14, 1998, the New York Times noted that 60% of CUNY faculty were adjuncts (5505 to 7522) - far above the 40% national average. The article suggests the FT faculty are roughly a THIRD of what they were in 1974 - is that possible. Meanwhile, adjuncts numbered nearly 8,000. What are the numbers 10 years later? If the adjuncts are the majority and we are union members why is the minority still insisting on the dream?

In 1997, the trustees set a goal of 70% ft faculty - did they do it? A 2002 article says no? (5640 to 7250) I am not a mathematician but isn't that 43% of teachers at CUNY are FT? What are the current numbers? Also worth noting, an article in the NY Times notes adjuncts make about 3 grand per course (mid 1990s) - exactly what I make now over a decade later, some improvement. This probably isn't news to anyone but I think it would help our solidarity and our processing of the contract if there was full and accurate consideration of our plight - in this reality, not according to the hazy notions of how CUNY was in 1974, when it had more than 16,000 (!) faculty - less than a third of whom were adjuncts. Now, I don't know the whole story but I find it problematic when some members vote according to a past, instead of a future vision. On the other hand, looking at the numbers, what if all the adjuncts voted no - given the trends, this union will eventually have to deliver to the adjuncts if they want their tiny pay increases ratified by the membership. I mean, how many adjuncts serve as delegates, given our majority status? I saw the email from the leadership denying the request to disseminate some information from some organized adjuncts (I have not joined them in any way) - the denial was based on the delegate approval of the contract being arrived at democratically. Yes, that is how democracy works and I don't dispute the position. I do wonder how long this situation will last as adjuncts continue to grow in number with ever academic year - or did this contract actually do something to increase faculty FT numbers (and now, the 100 conversion lines won't do it).

I gain so little by this contract, I have no problem continuing to vote no and encouraging other adjuncts to do the same.

***************************************************************

[Message]

To liken the plight of adjuncts to that of minorities being denied employment in the construction industry, I find to be offensive and reprehensive. Minorities were denied a means of employment and a way of supporting themselves and their families. Adjuncts, whom the majority are white males, are not being denied a means of employment or a way of supporting their family. They are gainfully employed, maybe not to fullest or their liking, but are employed. So do not go down that road, as a black male I know that road and you do not and do not profess that you do. Stay focused on what the demands are; become united in your ideals with attainable demands; and do not liken your plight to that form of civil rights. In other words, be careful of what you say and do, you don't want to offend possible supporters.

(Name Withheld)

***************************************************************

[Message]

Hi (Name Withheld),

You are right that I should not conflate class exploitation with race oppression, and I definitely did not mean to offend you.

I respectfully take issue with a few of your points though because I see them as opportunities to clarify what I meant to say.

1. "Minorities were denied a means of employment," yes, but I would change your verb to "are": the problem hasn't gone anywhere, because racist exclusion from hiring is one part of the tactic of divide-and-conquer of which the adjunct predicament is also an expression.

2. I thank you for reminding me that as a black male you might know things I don't, because that kind of sharing among union brothers and sisters is exactly what this important discussion is for. I didn't refer to black males though, but specifically said "women, minorities, and immigrants," because I was talking about the construction industry (in New York ) where the exclusion of workers from those groups undermines the bargaining power of the building trades unions.

3. Your point is well-taken that adjuncts by definition are "gainfully employed, maybe not to the fullest or to their liking, but are employed"; what I should have gone into but neglected to is that many minority, female, and immigrant workers in the construction industry are brought in as "apprentices" while those who "know someone" are hired as journeymen or as second or third year apprentices. In other words, victims of exploitation often do get jobs, but are hired at a lower pay rate, and then their work is more erratic (once a job is done, they don't know when their next assignment will be, while some of their counterparts seem to enjoy a stream of steady work). To us, this facet of life in the construction industry should sound disturbingly familiar. It has as much to do with nepotism as racism or sexism, of course, so even my expansion of the list of excluded groups to "women, minorities and immigrants" is still a considerable oversimplification of the problem, but the fact remains that the effect of this inequality on the union members and their bargaining power is negative and is often acquiesced to by union members themselves because they buy into the management's divide-and-conquer tactics. This is an example of false consciousness that hurts their own interests, as it is meant to.

4. Your advice to stay "focused on what the demands are; become united in your ideals with attainable demands" is welcome and I agree with it in principle which is why I agree with others (and probably yourself) that a better contract is probably not "attainable" now -- I'm talking more about the need for very pro-active education of the FT membership as part of an organizing campaign for the next contract, as alluded to by Lorraine and others. I'm sorry if I wasn't clear on that point; to me I feel like that I've already been airing that disclaimer like a broken record, but on the other hand this has been a long and tiring (but not in a negative way) email discussion and it's been easy for all of us to lose track of who's been speaking from which position.

5. Your call for me to "not liken your plight to that form of civil rights" is a little puzzling. First of all, I'm not an adjunct, but since I'm a new delegate I've probably never had the opportunity to meet you so I'll try my best to do that at the next DA so we can continue this discussion in person. I've always been wary of email and the way tones and meanings are misread or lost over it which is probably why I am so obsessively long-winded in my messages.

The second reason I find this comment so puzzling is that where I'm coming from, workers' rights are exactly a form of "civil rights." If this issue just affected a few privileged academics, I wouldn't care about it; I'd spend my time protesting the war or genocide in Darfur or something more important, but I do think that this kind of exploitation is a systemic problem and one way to fight it is locally, through our own workplaces, instead of leaving it to other people to deal with it. If you disagree, and are saying that my efforts are misplaced, then of course I'd be happy to hear from you what kinds of "civil rights" work you are involved with and even consider joining you in it, unless of course you think that I should "not go down that road" because I'm not a black male? In which case maybe I should just be content with what privileges I do have as a non-black male, non-adjunct, and let you and others do all the hard fighting while I stand on the side because it's not my problem?

(Name Withheld)

***************************************************************

[Message]

(Name Withheld)

"The university has changed, and this change doesn't look like it is going back to where it was many decades ago."

I could not agree more with this statement. It is the issue in a "nutshell". It is not only true of CUNY, but the issue is a nationwide and international phenomenon that adjuncts (contingent labor) are the backbone of colleges and universities everywhere. In order to deal with this new entity it is first important to recognize that it exists, and why, before we can begin to deal with labor relationships and contract negotiations.

Full-time faculty need to understand how all of this affects them. Other areas of this country are recently moving into new and somewhat different relationships with the New Universities/Colleges as structured. This economy will probably tax even these resources considerably more for some time as city and state higher education is barraged by student numbers. We need to find ways to deal with these times and support each other. That is what labor unionism is all about.

(Name Withheld)

***************************************************************

 

Interested readers may want to go to the following link for more information on the current adjunct contract fiasco. It contains an article with a more in depth look from both sides including comments by various CUNY faculty who have chosen to respond.

http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2008/07/30/cuny

 

THE CURRENT PSC LEADERSHIP IS DOING ITS BEST TO SILENCE YOU. THE PATRIOT WILL BE THERE TO MAKE YOUR VOICES HEARD!

In TRUE Solidarity,
(With CUNY faculty and employees not the PSC leadership!)

 

Sharad Karkhanis, Ph.D.
Professor Emeritus

Editor-in-Chief

 

Forthcoming issues of The Patriot may be accessed at
http://www.patriotreturns.com
Archived editions are available at
http://www.patriotreturns.com/archive.htm

As you know, Susan O'Malley has sought to silence the Patriot by bringing a lawsuit which seeks to limit his free speech and financially bankrupt him. Interested colleagues have weighed in at
www.freespeechcuny.blogspot.com