CSI Adjuncts Survey: Summary of Findings
Jan 16, 2016
Ruth Wangerin
See also: CSI Adjunct Survey results (Feb 2015)
Technical details. In December of 2014, we surveyed 1119 people who were on a list as working in adjunct teaching and non-teaching titles. We received 455 responses, at least a 40% response rate. About 10 questionnaires were eliminated because the person wasn’t an adjunct. In one case where an accurate current list of adjuncts was provided, the Business School (63 adjuncts in Spring 2015), there was a 39.7% rate of response (25 Business School adjuncts responded).
Because the list was not perfect—it included an
unknown number of people who did not respond because they no longer worked at
CSI or no longer worked as adjuncts—it is possible that overall as many as 50%
of the adjuncts at CSI at the time of the survey responded.
The survey had some limitations and analysis is not
complete. It was a first-time effort by volunteers, using Survey Monkey. Some
of the percentages reported below are based on the entire population of people
in adjunct teaching and non-teaching titles, including those with a full-time
job. Therefore, on some issues, the reported percentages may be underestimates.
Demographics.
Half
of the respondents had a Master degree, representing the largest group of
respondents, the adjunct lecturers. In addition, nearly a third (120) had a
PhD, MFA, or other terminal degree. Of these, an insignificant number (9) were
full-time CSI faculty/staff teaching an overload at their adjunct pay rate.
Non-teaching adjuncts accounted for 33 of the respondents. Women were 58.6% of
respondents, and from a quick analysis of samples of the available part-time
and full-time faculty lists, it appears that women are similarly
over-represented among faculty on campus. In age, respondents were spread all
the way from their early twenties to 75 and above. Interestingly, there was a
cluster of 55 people aged 65 and above; these employees are saving the
University money on health insurance because they are eligible for Medicare.
Outstanding
results. The issues that stood out as important to CSI adjuncts
were pay, job security, and collegiality (broadly defined). High percentages of
respondents wanted a significant raise, an end to uncertainty about whether
they’d be reappointed, and inclusion in the life of the college.
Half of the respondents said they would like a
full-time teaching job. So much for the notion that most adjuncts have a
different profession and are just moonlighting. Another 30% said they would like
a regular part-time teaching job. Yet most seemed pessimistic about the chances
that the system would change and were focused instead on ways to improve the
existing situation. For example, 71% thought adjuncts should be allowed to
teach more than 9 credits on the CSI campus. In the comments, respondents
suggested having more courses available to adjuncts, preference for adjuncts
rather than full-time faculty for summer courses, and an end to CUNY’s
opposition to unemployment insurance for adjuncts.
Pay.
A
majority of adjuncts want a significant pay increase. The pay raise question
was asked in several questions in different ways. In one question, the two options
specifying a significant pay raise were by far the most frequently selected as
favorite choice from among the priorities listed. Asked another way in another
question, pay was chosen as a “very important” contract issue” by 86% of
respondents.
Our results are at odds with statements by officers of
the Professional Staff Congress that only 2-3,000 adjuncts are teaching as
their main source of income, that most are doing this work for supplementary
income. If one truly believes that, then the implication would be that raising
adjunct wages is a lower priority than raising the wages of “real” college
faculty and staff.
Obviously, it is inappropriate to set a fair rate of
pay for professional services based on the wage necessary to prevent desperate
poverty, and only for those at risk of desperate poverty. Nevertheless, our
survey refutes even the evidence used for that misguided thinking.
Anecdotally, the PSC bases their estimate of how many
people are “living on” adjunct wages on the number of people enrolled in the
adjunct health insurance plan. In 2011, according to the PSC website, that was
fewer than 2,000 people, only 13% of the total number of adjuncts.
In the spring semester of 2011, the
most recent for which we have figures, CUNY employed 13,198 teaching and
non-teaching adjuncts. Only 13%, or 1,721, received adjunct health insurance
through the Welfare Fund. Adjuncts
and health insurance 2011
In our 2014 survey, 71 (17%) of the 411 CSI adjuncts who
answered the question had the adjunct health insurance plan and 248 had health
insurance from another source. Another 21% had no health insurance at all. It
would be more fair, when estimating the people who depend on the low CUNY
adjunct wages for a living, to include the 21% who have no health insurance at
all (mostly because they do not qualify for the adjunct health insurance
benefit[i]). In that case, we’re
talking about 38%, or approximately 4,000 people. And even the lucky ones who
qualify for the adjunct insurance have no coverage through CUNY for their
dependents.
In fact, 36% of respondents on our survey said that
this job at CSI is their primary source of income! Extrapolating to the entire
population of adjuncts at CUNY, even a conservative estimate (one-third of
13,000) gives a figure of over 4,000 “living on” the near poverty level wages
paid to adjuncts.
The pay is so low that several people at CSI qualified
for public assistance or food stamps during the past year. Half of the
respondents (201 people) said that during their time working as an adjunct they
had experienced trouble with their living expenses during the unpaid summer
and/or winter breaks.[ii]
The CSI survey clearly refuted the stereotype that
most adjuncts have full-time jobs and are “moonlighting.” Only 34% of our
respondents had a full-time job, and some of those commented that their jobs
paid poorly.
Almost 70% of respondents said the pay from this
adjunct position at CSI was “very important” to their livelihood, and 60% said that
other people also depended on them for a substantial portion of their support.
Given that adjuncts are well-educated and have many
skills, it is not surprising that almost 90% have one or more additional
sources of income to supplement the poor CUNY wages. The most common was one or
more other part time jobs (40%). However, one of the few part time jobs that
can be coordinated with the changing schedule of a teaching adjunct is another
part time teaching job, probably also poorly paid.
Other additional sources of income reported by
respondents included pensions (16%), self-employment (14%), and another wage
earner in the household (>50%). While most adjuncts are managing to stay
alive (a separate issue from fair pay in most occupations), in actuality,
pension systems, Medicare, significant others, and people’s outside careers are
subsidizing CUNY’s habit of depending on “low-paid adjunct labor.”
Job
security. The vast majority (81%) want job security and an end
to the system where they never know if they’ll be working again in the next
term. In one question, slightly more people ranked job security their #1
concern and pay equity #2 than vice versa. Those with full-time jobs also
ranked job security important to adjuncts, for many of them depend on this as
part of household income.
While less than a quarter had had a class canceled
within the last month before the beginning of the term, a full three-quarters
said they would like to be paid for the course if it were canceled this late.
Specific
policy suggestions. A question listed several policies that are
often suggested to improve the situation of adjuncts. The highest ranking
policies were the two focused on raising pay to per-course equity with those
doing similar work.
% ranking as
“favorite idea”
|
Policy
suggestion
|
48.31%
114
|
Raising the minimum beginning rate for a 3-credit course to
$5,000 (endorsed by CUNY and SUNY faculty unions) or $7,230 (recommended by
the Modern Language Association in 2010).
|
33.94%
75
|
Increasing the pay rate for all adjunct titles annually until
per-course parity is reached with the pay rate of a full-time lecturer.
|
32.49%
64
|
Awarding adjuncts a Certificate of Continuous Employment
(similar to tenure) in the adjunct title after 5 years (out of the past 7
years) in the same department and a successful review by the department.
|
These “pay equity” choices outranked the Certificate
of Continuous Employment, which is word-for-word the specific policy on job
security that was being negotiated at that time by the PSC for those who had
worked 10 semesters. In an unfortunate oversight, the survey didn’t list a
policy option of “regularization” after 2 semesters, which has been won at
Vancouver Community College in British Columbia. So we don’t know how many
adjuncts would have chosen as their favorite or second favorite idea a form of
job security that would also apply to the 60% of adjuncts who haven’t served 10
semesters.
Collegiality,
inclusion, and respect. In many ways, adjuncts expressed a
desire to participate in the collegiality and intellectual life of the college.
Of the teaching adjuncts, 90% said that academic freedom was either “extremely
important” or “very important” to them. Many respondents reported going to
meetings, trainings and activities. Others said they cannot be as involved on
campus as they wish, for a variety of reasons. Yet 40% said a voice in
governance was “very important” to them.
One excuse often heard for paying adjunct faculty so
little in comparison with tenure-track faculty is that only tenure track
faculty do research. However, 30% of adjuncts in this survey said they are
conducting their own research and 41% said that support for research and travel
to conferences was “very important.” Several adjunct faculty reiterated in
written comments how important it is for the university and the students that
faculty conduct research. Some complained about feeling isolated and
disconnected from the college and from colleagues.
The respect issue is a big one. Comments were allowed
on many of the questions, and many people took this opportunity to share
sarcastic observations about the way we are treated.
Office
space. Almost no adjunct had a desk of his/her own, much less
a private office, unless it was an adjunct with a full-time job at the campus
who was teaching a course as an adjunct at night. Asked to estimate the number
of people in an adjunct office, 27% said more than 10, and 35% said they did
not know but it was definitely more than 1. What’s worse, at least 19 wrote in
that they had no office space at all.
Conclusion.
Faculty
working conditions are student learning conditions. And 68% of respondents
agreed with the statement, “With better pay and working conditions I would be able
to do a better job in my adjunct position.” Anecdotally, some of those who
disagreed or were neutral on that question objected to any implication that
they were not already doing their very best in the job despite the substandard
pay and working conditions.
[i] Most in this
uninsured category (86 of the 92) specified that they were unable to qualify
for the adjunct health insurance plan – 57 because they weren’t working enough
hours and 36 because they had not worked enough previous terms.
[ii] Among
the most popular suggestions for how to address the problem of unpaid breaks in
the academic year were the following:
- the college should provide paid work or paid training during the breaks between terms
- adjuncts should be paid for course preparation
- the pay rate should be increased sufficiently so that adjuncts would be able to survive the summer just like regular K-12 or college teachers
- those who committed to teaching the next term should be given a stipend during the preceding break
- the college should not oppose people’s applications for unemployment insurance.
No comments:
Post a Comment