February 2000 

If Gov. Gray Davis offered you $50 million for part-time faculty, what percentage would you apportion to (1) job conversion (converting part-time positions into full-time jobs) and to (2) pro-rata pay (equal pay for equal work)?

Your responses will be posted here as received, and may be used in other FACCC publications.

Please e-mail responses to Communications Director Katherine Martinez, k7martinez@aol.com, by Tuesday, Feb. 29 (use the subject "February Question")

Answers received: (some of the message authors below copied their answers to FACCC@onelist.com, elchorro-list@jumbo.surfari.net, and CCC-PartTime@onelist.com )

• Your answer could be here
• lfraser@jps.net (Lin Fraser): $50 million will not go far in providing full-time jobs. Moreover, we need to raise part-timers from the poverty level until more full-time jobs can be created (remember, we have part-time colleagues working for as little as
  $22 per hour) and AB 1725 can be fulfilled.
  
  Therefore, the answer is obvious. If the $50 million part-timer fund is put into the budget, it should go toward part-timer pay. PERIOD.—Lin Fraser, Sacramento City College and Sierra College
• deborahadahl@hotmail.com (deborah dahl): The most important issue for PTers, in my opinion, is PRO-RATA PAY.
  The equity issue must be our central focus. Students and faculty deserve the respect of FT service pay and recognition. PTers deserve to be treated and paid as full service faculty, and the system deserves that we teach and act like full service faculty with appropriate office hours, benefits, pay and seniority rights. If we lobby for these things, then, maybe, more full time positions will follow. If not, then, at least, our students will have full service faculty who are treated with the respect they deserve
  regardless if they teach one class or six classes.—Deborah Dahl, Diablo Valley College, 20 years a PTer.
• SIMPSON_LANTZ@smc.edu (SIMPSON_LANTZ):  I assume this question is based upon the current politics of what's possible with the governor this year. My response to that question is pro rata pay. FT conversion only continues the two-tiered salary system.
  
  The real question is: What is best for the system?
  
  The real answer is abolition of the two-tiered employment system by abolition of the "temporary faculty" category in the statutes.
  
  Lantz Simpson
• kgoelzer@san.rr.com I would want 100% of that $50 million apportioned to JOB CONVERSION. -- Kathryn Goelzer, adjunct instructor of English, Southwestern College
• kpluta1@ix.netcom.com (Kate Pluta) Pro-rata pay. Kate Pluta, Bakersfield College
• SBaringer@aol.com —The $50 million proposal was originally a proposal for part-time pay equity, and should continue to be so. Funds for hiring more full-time faculty are a different issue altogether and should come from Partnership for Excellence.
  Pt-to-Ft job conversion will happen on its own once there is less money to be made by underpaying part-timers. And though increasing the full-time faculty ratio is academically sound, it offers nothing to the many part-time faculty who are not eligible for full-time jobs for a variety of reasons: the specalized nature of what they teach, their need to work part-time to attend to family needs, etc. — Sandy Baringer
• HELLER_GLORIA@smc.edu   (HELLER_GLORIA) Colleagues:
  
  I "understand the basis of the question," too. And for PRECISELY that reason I voiced my displeasure with the question being asked, being phrased in such black-n-white terms, and being posed as if pters' answering it was going to help get EITHER of the options get accomplised.
  
  In fact, Chris' email goes on to explain the exceptionally long + complicated history of "the basis of the question."
  
  It is only through a VERY laborious and delicate political process that anything can get accomplished in the pter realm, and phrasing the question in the way it was seems to disregard the reality of that highly nuanced process.
  
  I found it demeaning to have these 2 options tossed out to us pters like crumbs on the floor. We are not that naive, nor is this a game.
  
  Gloria Heller
• Sk7707@aol.com —Dear Colleagues,
  
  A question remains in my mind about the retirement for part-time instructors. It seems, from my past conversations with STRS, that for our retirement only fall and spring sessions are counted. STRS does not count the hours we work in any winter intersession period, or in the summer. Or is this inaccurate?  If this is not inaccurate, I'm very concerned as many of us work in the  summer and winter, and these hours do not count toward our final retirement tally. This rule, if true, also makes it difficult to accrue the hours  needed to become fully vested. Are there any negotations which address our retirement needs? I'm not even near retirement age, but I like to know what  the future holds to some degree. The FT instructors know very well what
  their retirement benefits will be. Would anyone know what the current status of our retirement might be?
  
  Kindest regards,
  
  Troy
  sk7707@aol.com
• MartyHitt@aol.com —Equal pay for equal work is certainly fundamental. Rights to continued employment are also important and they do not following automatically from  equal pay for equal work. Also of importance is the respect that any employee
  deserves - and full access to the services of the college.
• debkaye@hotmail.com (Deborah Kaye) Apply it all to pro-rata pay. (Those of us who wish to work part time
  deserve to be treated with fairness and equality.)
• hindman@ix.netcom.com (Carlton Hindman)—Pro rata pay should be the number one priority. The inequity there is shocking.
• Langlrn@aol.com —I want equal pay for equal work, pro-rata all the way!
• Sophie1662@aol.com —Step one equal pay! Let's make it a big step forward in the year 2000! M.A. Ifft
• GOLDSTEIN_MARTIN@smc.edu (GOLDSTEIN_MARTIN)
  
  What do I want as a pt faculty member:
  
              EQUAL PAY FOR EQUAL WORK   
  
  Everything else follows from that basic fact. If -- and only if -- we are paid equally, we will be treated as equals. Office hours, health benefits,
  etc, will come naturally. The system works only because we have pt faculty teaching the majority of classes in most if not all of the cc's -- and it
  works, so let's not fix it. Converstion to ft would be a nightmare, and probably set us off against ourselves. Just pay us fairly for the work
  we're already doing, and move towards contracts that give us some kind of job security -- and the system will work even better.
  
  That's my opinion, anyway.
  
  Martin M. Goldstein
  Santa Monica College
  Emerson College, LA
  
• GOLDSTEIN_MARTIN@smc.edu (GOLDSTEIN_MARTIN): I would put 100% of that $50 million towards EQUAL PAY FOR EQUAL WORK --NOW!!!
• rbd2051@tiptoe.fhda.edu (Rob Dewis) All of it to pro-rata pay for part-timers.
• esl@concentric.net (Dennis Miller) 100% of the $50 million to pro-rata pay for part-timers
• cms2425@tiptoe.fhda.edu (Chris Storer)
  
  Dear Colleagues,
  
  I think I understand the basis of the question. It is the idea that politics is the art of compromise, but only when necessary. Here we are
  talking about our position and positions should be based on what is right and what is practical. Only in the face of reasonable argument should one
  change position. And compromise should be the result of negotiations entered into in good faith.
  
  This said, it seems to me the basic faculty position taken over the past year has matured and stood the test of time and all argument against it.
  (There has been precious little counter argument since the opposition has been unable to actually address the issues with any reasoned response.)
  
  The fact is that the CCC system has been underfunded for several decades and this has resulted in a continued decline in FT faculty and a continued
  and growing abuse of PT faculty. It has also led to the shift of PT faculty to areas of the curriculum where their temporary status and compensation
  inequity has an increasingly negative effect on students and their needs. The state, in this season of plenty with a growing budget surplus, must
  address these direct consequences of underfunding. But we cannot expect them to do so if we continue to say there is no problem.
  
  The Governor has already told the system that it should hire more FT faculty with Partnership for Excellence money (PFE). Assemblymember Sarah
  Reyes also said as much to ACCA two weeks ago. PFE was a Wilson replacement for AB 1725's Program Improvement Fund (much to the delight of the
  administrative mind set). Governor Davis also likes the accountability of PFE. Thus, we need to roll the two together. That is, we should argue for
  the full system request of the 155 million of PFE, and we should tie it to a 'Program Improvement like' restriction that a percentage be used for new
  FT positions, and to accountability controls that include a faculty sign-off on the decision making process for all PFE funds to assure the
  legislature that it will be used for new student/education centered projects.
  
  We also must stick by the PT Equity Fund. If the system is going to use part-time faculty, it simply must pay equal compensation for equal work.
  This is a no-brainer. The Legislature spoke its agreement loudly on this by passing along AB 420. Of course full details on achieving equity must await
  a full analysis of the problem, but the basics are clear and simple, and they need no study to be understood. The $50,000,000.00 PT Equity Fund is
  but a promissory note, a real start on a 5 or 6 year project. There is time for a complete and careful study before getting down to the end game of
  cleaning up the details, but what ever those details, they will be easier to deal with if we start now. The state and our institutions can no longer
  afford the moral outrage of continuiing exploitation. And I think part-time faculty will no longer wait if the state does not take this step now. They
  have waited long enough, bearing the burdens of a failing system.
  
  All three elements are a reasonable and necessary package to address the underfunding of the CCC system. The Governor and the legislature see this
  and have told us as much. The only piece missing is for the leadership of the system to unite around this basic budget proposal.
  
  There is a window of opportunity, opened wide a year ago. We have missed one whole year. If the administrative side of our house will make common
  cause with faculty, the system will succeed now, and also set the foundation for continued progress in addressing our chronic underfunding.
  If they continue to say the system is fine and that underfunding is causing no real problem (their failed approach of the past eight years) faculty
  will succeed in spite of them, proving that it is faculty who really care about students and the mission of the CCCs.
  
  SIncerely,
  
  Chris
• mbertsch@joshuanet.com (Michael Bertsch)
  
  Greetings, All--
  
  Part Time faculty have suffered enough. That question's wording was insulting. Here's a song I play all the time, thinking specifically of
  part time faculty:
  
  http://arts.ucsc.edu/GDead/AGDL/cumb.html
  
  The Governor and the Consultation crew are managers. None of them teaches. To expect them to make decisions that benefit part time teachers is like
  wishing cats could fly so we wouldn't have to herd them.
  
  Michael Bertsch
  12 years under PartTime Apartheid
• rby2oz@impulse.net (Robert Yoshioka):
  
  Interesting question, given the political realities you-all have to deal with in Sacramento while trying to cobble together coalitions and strategic
  alliances!
  
  Let me say at the outset, I would be much happier if Gray Davis did the right thing and offered up $300 million to SIGNIFICANTLY address
  salary/benefits equalization for part time faculty around the state. When you think that ONLY $300 million would solve most of our financial and
  monetary concerns, it seems a bit disingenuous to be carving up a small pie when the "pie in the sky - $300 million" is what is needed...yesterday!
  
  Be that as it may, your question is valid, given politics, as currently practiced, in "Sacra-tomato!" We are looking here at a $50 million "down
  payment" on a long overdue note to part time faculty who daily struggle to maintain a high standard of teaching in order to discharge our
  responsibility to "teach all who come our way, to the best of our ability."
  
  Governor Davis and Chancellor Nussbaum, his BOG, along with various CEO/CFO's and Boards of Trustees around the state have made a mess in their
  hiring of full time faculty using "partnership for extravagance" money. If I had my druthers, I wouldn't let them touch these funds, except to use
  them in a "mandated and categorical" fashion to address pro-rata pay issues. The reason for this is quite simple: While we are waiting for
  more full time jobs to materialize from whatever sources they materialize from, we, as part timers need to be moving toward earning a poverty-level
  wage.
  
  Now, having said that, let me suggest that the political process would suggest "compromise" and "sharing" of scarce resources, when trying to
  cobble together a realistic solution to this "huge windfall."
  
  Strategically, sharing makes sense...but only if the funds thus shared, would be allocated to "job conversion" in a strictly enforced
  (mandated/categorical funding) that would give the individual districts very little leeway in diverting funds to other than "job conversion." In
  addition, I would suggest that ANY funds used for "job conversion," should also be incumbered with a mandated "diversity hire" requirement, and that
  the funds for said "job conversion" should only be used to convert existing part time positions by hiring "diversely" from currently existing part time
  faculty ranks. No more of this "bringing in new blood into the district," scams that have been routinely used to keep the ranks of part timers stable
  and exploited.
  
  As with all questions of this sort, let me be the first to suggest that we need to respond to these, "what ifs..." so as to keep our analytical scalpels sharpened, lest we become soft and go easy on the money-folks when the finally wake up and "make us an offer that we can't hardly refuse!"
  
  In struggle,
  Robert B. Yoshioka, Part Time FACCC Board Member, Southern California
  From the Trenches
  @Allan Hancock College
• MQuan9197@aol.com:
  
  To ALL:
  
  The following question posed by FACCC is a legitimate and serious question that needs part-time faculty consideration. This is the time of year when the State budget is being formulated and FACCC needs to go to the legislators and be able to say to them that this is what part-time faculty want. The following is a highly valid question and FACCC needs to know what part-time faculty are thinking.
  
  Further, if those entities that represent faculty voices (CTA, CFT, FACCC, CCCI, CPFA, CWA) are not able through Consultation with the Chancellor and his board to get part-time faculty concerns addressed, then it will be necessary to go to the legislators direct. So, FACCC needs to know what you are thinking, they need to hear from you, so that they can take this to the legislators. Suffice it to say we are not going to get everything we want, so give FACCC some feedback in the direction you would want to go IF (and this is a big IF) the Gov. Davis offered $50 million dollars for part-time faculty.
  — Margaret Quan
  
• Langlrn@aol.com —I want equal pay for equal work--a state law should be passed. —George Rubio.
• GayMath@aol.com — Put it ALL to pro-rata pay. I think if pro-rata pay really happened, there would soon be many more full-time positions, since the current HUGE disincentive for using more full-time people would be removed. Arlan Wareham
• drewoman@earthlink.net (Drew Oman): I second Linda's vote: put it ALL (!!!) toward part-time equity. No matter how many of us get hired to full time jobs, the rest of us need to be respected and treated professionally, not exploited. thnx, Drew
• bnc@saber.net (The Crowes) — I'd put it toward pro rata pay. If part-timers received pay equity then there would no longer be an incentive for administrators keep large numbers of part-time faculty in long-term positions. The part-timers would then be used as designed, i.e. to fill in for unexpected growth, flexibility in developing new programs, and bringing in teachers from the community with expertise and current experience in certain disciplines, for example a business person to teach one business class. — Bill Crowe, Assoc. Instructor of History for nearly 8 years
• szann@earthlink.net — 80% to pro-rata pay    20% to more full time positions
  
  However--the pro-rata pay issue is more complex than simply equal pay for equal work--without some sort of job security to go with that equal
  pay for equal work. Or does that go without saying?
• cekarady60@hotmail.com — I Believe both can be accomplished. Stick to the 75%:25% ratio. Pay the 25% equitably. —Carmen Karady, Ph.D., Education
• JWBrownrigg@rocketmail.com — Why is this devious wording and formulating of the question being used? This is a divide and conquor tactic and no one should give it a response one way OR the other!—Joseph W. Brownrigg
• douglas@homemail.com — ALL to pro-rata pay! If PTers are paid pro-rata, there is no reason to have so many PTers. The system would then begain to job convert on its own.— Scott Douglas, Mathematics Instructor, American River College, Sierra College
• HELLER_GLORIA@smc.edu — The question is moot since (l) and (2) mean the same thing. ("Pro rata pay" converts ALL pt jobs into ft.)
  
  No can seriously believe that the job of teaching can be separated out into distinct parcels of doing this and doing that!!! I mean, c'mon, now, after
  all we've been talking about for years now, no one really thinks that this is possible any more, do they!?!
  
  Pters can no more be paid for the "teaching" part of what they do than can fters. INDEED!!! Although I am union-proud, I KNOW that teaching is not
  like working a car assembly line. —Gloria Heller, Chair, Hourly Committee, Santa Monica College Faculty Association
• cushing@allweb.com—Linda Cushing: Put it ALL to pro-rata pay.

Question of the Month Archives

Do you have suggestions for future questions?
E-mail FACCC Communications Director Katherine Martinez with "Question Idea" in the subject line.

Faculty Association of California Community Colleges, 926 J Street, Suite 211, Sacramento, CA 95814-2790  (916) 447-8555  Fax (916) 447-0726   faccc@aol.com  www.faccc.org