Is Washington State an Unlikely Leader?
Progress on Addressing Contingent Work Issues in Academia
By
Daniel Jacoby
University of Washington, Bothell
There are increasing signs that restive
higher education faculty in Washington State are effectively resisting
belt-tightening measures. Positive omens include the passage of a state
initiative providing cost of living adjustments for K-12 through community
college; a 20 million dollar state down-payment reducing the part-time
community college teacher wage gap; court challenges against the exclusion of
part-time instructors from benefits; and, a state plan to convert a substantial
number of part-time positions into full-time lines. These initiatives
constitute a ray of light on the otherwise darkened landscape of higher
education.
This essay will first highlight the state
context in which faculty concerns have arisen. Having laid that groundwork, the
essay reports on the parameters within which contingent academic work now
occurs within the state's community colleges. Next the discussion turns to how
part-timers have mobilized and what affect on policy they have had. The essay
concludes by examining some of the challenges in the immediate future.
1. A financial outlook on higher
Education in Washington State
Washington's higher education faculty has
become more assertive as the severity of restraints on state funding for
education has increased. Washington's perennial fiscal crises have been
compounded by unorthodox fiscal constraints. The state is one the eight that
have no income tax. Meanwhile, under Initiative 601, passed in 1994,
expenditures were capped to grow no faster than population and inflation
combined. Because the educational constituency has grown faster than these
limits, officials find themselves trying to fund higher education on the cheap.
That the community college system forms the
bedrock of the state's higher education infrastructure is symptomatic of these
financial difficulties. During 1999-2000 there were approximately 125,000
state-funded full-time equivalent community college students [FTE]. By
contrast, the four-year colleges enrolled only 28,000 state-funded freshmen and
sophomores, along with an additional 41,000 undergraduate at the upper division
level. The difference in lower and upper classman at the four-year schools is
partly made up by the annual inflow of approximately 11,000 new transfer
students from the community colleges each year. Given that the state says 27%
of community college entrants (by headcount some 87, 500 students) intend to
transfer to a four year institution, it is evident that the vast majority of
students intending to complete a bachelors degree begin their higher education
in Washington State via the two-year college system (SBCTC, 2000A).
The funding formulas for higher education
are a likely factor accounting for this pattern. The State Board for Community
and Technical College's [SBCTC] official budget request explains that community
colleges receive less than four thousand dollars in state funding per student
whereas regional institutions receive approximately five and one half thousand.
Funding differentials are exacerbated by the state's recent shift whereby
colleges retain their own tuition dollars. So in addition to the $1,500
difference in general fund revenue, tuition disparities at the community
colleges increase the shortfall overall to a figure that ranges between $2,500
and $3,500 (SBCTC 2000B).
Washington State community colleges, like
those almost everywhere else, have consistently been under-funded relative to
their four-year peers. The lower funding formula contributed to the
attractiveness in building out the community college system in the early 1970s.
Although five new upper division campuses were inaugurated in 1990 to encourage
students to complete their bachelor degrees, coordination at all these campuses
has been difficult and enrollment growth much slower than anticipated. The
"seamless education" that was the talk of the 90s has clearly not
patched the system together. One consequence is that the state has one of the
lowest per capita rates of awarding four-year degrees in the country.
As if panaceas like "seamless
education" were not bankrupt enough, in 1997 Governor Locke advanced the
idea of the "virtual university." Expansion of brick and mortar
education was declared financially infeasible and on-line distance education
was to substitute for that kind of expansion. Patterned after the now
financially plagued Western Governors University, Locke's proposal quickly
generated opposition at the University of Washington as some 600 faculty
signing a petition rejecting the plan. But financial pressures continue. Within
the University of Washington, the cause of contingent academic workers caught
hold and teaching assistants organized to demand their own union in the Spring
of 2000. In the fall, the Faculty Senate closed ranks behind the TA's and asked
the administration to recognize their union. UW President McCormick took the
bold step of reversing a long-held administration policy and announced an
agreement in which the TA's and the University would jointly approach the
legislature to request enabling legislation establishing a framework under
which TA bargaining rights will be established and negotiations be conducted.
Faculty statewide continue to demand higher
wages, and the issue of union bargaining rights at four year colleges and
Universities is heating up. While a union of faculty at Eastern Washington
University was peacefully agreed to by the Board of Regents and the EWU
administration despite the absence of state enabling legislation, at Central
Washington University the issue has also been raised but amiable relations
appear distant. Still, it is the community college and part-time situation that
remains most inequitable.
Failing to rally forces around an anti-601
initiative, the Washington Educational Association sponsored, and the
Washington Federation of Teachers ultimately endorsed, a citizen's referendum
which guaranteed teachers from Kindergarten through Community College raises in
line with the cost of living. In a statewide election the referendum passed
overwhelmingly. Unfortunately, that stopgap measure may actually complicate the
task of closing the pay differential between part-timers and full-timers
because it reduces the pot of money to be spent raising part-time salaries.
2. The Part-time issue in Washington's
Community Colleges
Washington State is a leader in community
college education. Whether that is something to brag about depends upon what
you look at. The state's faculty is among the most creative in developing new
models of teaching. With help from the Washington Center for the Improvement of
Undergraduate Education, the state's community college system has been in the
vanguard of the learning community movement whereby questions are investigated
with teams of faculty from different disciplines. In another show of quality,
President Clinton touted one of Shoreline Community College's job training
programs as a national model. In these and other areas, it cannot be said that
the state's community colleges lack drive or originality. Lurking beyond these
positive images are the problems created by inequities in faculty employment.
The May 2000 report from the National
Center for Educational Statistics makes clear, the pattern of part-time
employment in Washington is not unique. According to their national survey,
sixty two percent of the 255,000 instructional faculty and staff working in the
nations two-year schools were employed part-time. Because part-timers, taught less
than half the courses of full time teachers, (2.1 courses per semester vs.
4.5), this faculty headcount translates into a pattern in which roughly 43 per
cent of student instruction is conducted by part-timers (NCES, May 2000, pp. 39
and 78). Data provided by Washington's SBCTC indicate that the state is almost
dead even with this national average. While the use of part-timers in
Washington accelerated in the early 1990s, that increase has, since 1995, been
practically halted (Best
Practices Task Force, 1996). Since that
time the percentage of part-timers has risen less than 1%. It appears likely
that lobbying by part-timers was a factor in changing the trajectory of
part-time employment.
The scale of part-time faculty
participation in the instruction of community college undergraduates forced the
1996 Best Practices Task Force to admit that the adjunct system had been
abused. Hiring exceeded the level which could be justified educationally:
"[B]udget reductions, increased enrollment that is not fully funded, and
similar requirements to 'do more with less' all create a powerful incentive for
colleges to employ adjunct faculty for purely economic reasons--to deliver
needed services within available budgets (Best Practices, 1996, p 4)."
The incidence of part-time faculty use is
uneven across the community college system. Some colleges find ways to hire
more full time faculty, just as some programs within colleges are less deeply
affected. Overall, rural colleges are less dependent on adjuncts, largely because
they find it difficult to recruit them. Likewise, technical colleges, where job
training predominates, are staffed almost entirely by full-time instructors.
The use of part-timers is most
disproportionate within the Basic Skills area, particularly in English as a
Second Language [ESL] courses. Part-time instructors taught slightly over 69%
of the FTE course-load in Basic Skills courses throughout the state system.
Humanities instructors occupied second place as some 48% of these courses were
taught using part-time instructors. In only three of eight broad
classifications were fewer than 40% of courses taught by part-timers:
Mechanical and Engineering 25%; Social Sciences 36%; and Science 37%.
As Table 1 makes clear the proportion of
classes taught by full-timers rises substantially if we remove the roughly 15%
of classes that were taught during the evening, off the main campus, or that
depended upon non-state funds. One may be able to justify this under the
assumption that these are the arenas used to justify hiring
"flexible" part-time faculty. Doing so reduces the incidence of
part-timers instruction from 43% to 30% of FTE class instruction. However,
breaking down totals by division continues to reveal a similar picture in
regard to where part-timers are most commonly deployed: The three divisions in
which they participate most heavily are, in descending order: Basic Skills
(50%); Humanities (39%); and Math (33%).
_____________________________________________________
Table 1: Use of part-timers in Washington
State, Fall 1999
For All Courses On-campus, Day, State Funds
Academic Area |
PT FTE Courses taught |
Total FTE Courses Taught |
|
PT FTE Courses Taught |
Total FTE Courses Taught |
Basic Skills |
391.03 |
563.51 |
|
81.78 |
161.95 |
|
69.39% |
|
|
50.50% |
|
Business, Data |
357.88 |
871.51 |
|
136.48 |
535.04 |
Processing |
41.06% |
|
|
25.51% |
|
Humanities |
596.02 |
1232.88 |
|
351.41 |
898.97 |
|
48.34% |
|
|
39.09% |
|
Math |
217.22 |
493.76 |
|
120.99 |
360.39 |
|
43.99% |
|
|
33.57% |
|
Mechanical |
152.94 |
603.3 |
|
58.83 |
424.78 |
Engineering |
25.35% |
|
|
13.85% |
|
Public Service |
477.25 |
1110.22 |
|
207.4 |
689.82 |
|
42.99% |
|
|
30.07% |
|
Science |
145.9 |
394.04 |
|
66.23 |
279.12 |
|
37.03% |
|
|
23.73% |
|
Social Science |
157.13 |
434.13 |
|
75.96 |
300.27 |
|
36.19% |
|
|
25.30% |
|
Totals |
2495.37 |
5703.35 |
|
1099.08 |
3650.34 |
|
43.75% |
|
|
30.11% |
|
Source: Compiled from
Washington State Board for Community and Technical Colleges Data
______________________________________________________
To learn more about part-timers preferences
and work history, the Washington Federation of Teachers surveyed faculty at 14
of institutions for which it is the bargaining representative. Surveys were
given to union representatives to distribute to all part-timers on their
campuses and 555 separate surveys were returned. While the method of
distribution and collection leaves open the probability of sample bias,
legitimate conclusions may be drawn on the basis of these surveys, provided
appropriate qualifications are noted. Results must be regarded as suggestive,
not as definitive estimates that reflect the total population.
In anticipation of the survey results, it
is helpful first to examine potential sources of bias. Surveys were distributed
through campus mailboxes. However, some part-timers do not have mailboxes,
while others do not teach at the central campus of their institution and may
not have been reached. Although campus leaders at some colleges made a strong
effort to exhort their part-timers to return the surveys, at other campuses
surveys were returned on a more casual basis.
It is important to determine whether the
returned surveys constitute a representative cross section of faculty at the
colleges. In Table 3, we can see that some of the 8 major disciplinary
categories used by the State Board to define subject area, such as Basic Skills
and Humanities, are significantly over-represented, others, particularly
science and social sciences, more closely reflect the distribution of faculty
by subject area. Given theses variations, it is probable that the survey as a
whole is biased toward faculty more aggrieved by part-time issues. Thus,
results are best interpreted as indicating how employment concerns respond to
specific variables change, not as definitive estimates of the percentage of
faculty in a given category.
The survey was designed to provide
information on two main concerns. The first was to gage whether the part-time
faculty prefers higher levels of employment. Second, the survey was intended to
develop some categories that might help us understand these preferences.
______________________________________________________
Table
2: Number and Percentage of Returns from Washington State Community Colleges
______________________________________________________
College* |
Prime1 Affiliation |
% |
Headcount2 |
Total3 |
% |
Centralia |
14 |
11% |
128 |
21 |
16% |
Edmonds |
81 |
28% |
294 |
106 |
36% |
Everett |
32 |
16% |
196 |
39 |
20% |
Peninsula |
25 |
17% |
149 |
26 |
17% |
Pierce County |
28 |
8% |
343 |
34 |
10% |
Seattle Central |
44 |
13% |
328 |
57 |
17% |
Seattle North |
31 |
10% |
303 |
48 |
16% |
Seattle South |
23 |
9% |
267 |
34 |
13% |
Shoreline |
65 |
22% |
294 |
93 |
32% |
Skagit Valley |
37 |
19% |
195 |
48 |
25% |
South Puget |
38 |
24% |
160 |
47 |
29% |
Tacoma College |
35 |
13% |
269 |
49 |
18% |
Whatcom |
45 |
29% |
157 |
47 |
30% |
Yakima Valley |
25 |
14% |
182 |
26 |
14% |
Overall |
523 |
16% |
3265 |
675 |
21% |
1 Faculty assigned to schools
according to their stated primary affiliation
2 Percentages are calculated using
state data for Fall 1999 as shown. These data are for all Part-time faculty,
including those on contract funding, teaching at night or on other campuses.
3 Calculated using all data from
faculty who taught at school, regardless whether they identified this is
primary affiliation. It is appropriate to group responses by college when
looking for college wide information but because some faculty taught at more
than one campus, both the state's total of 3265 faculty and the survey total of
675 involve double counts.
*Only colleges with total response
rate in excess of 10% included.
______________________________________________________________________
Clearly, not the entire part-time faculty
wants full-time employment. However, in the WFT survey, 50% said they did and,
another 18% said they wanted more work than they have presently secured through
their community college jobs. Fewer than 30% of those indicating a preference
said they wished to work as little as their present employment provides. The
percentage of those dissatisfied is thus very large, and would likely remain so
even with greater survey participation.
______________________________________________________
Table
3: Distribution of Faculty by Academic Field of Employment
______________________________________________________
______________________________________________________
Several attributes were more prevalent
among those who wanted full-time work. The most important thing to note is that
large percentages of faculty reported they were either the only wage earner in
their family, or that that this was the primary source of their income. Fully
59% of the individuals surveyed reported that part-time teaching was the
primary source of their personal income. Additionally, 34% reported that their
earnings were the only source of income in their household. Within the
overlapping group of 136 respondents (27%) who essentially identified community
college teaching as virtually their entire household income (i.e., they are
only household support and this is their only source of income) nearly 84% said
they wanted more (15%) or full-time work (68%). Likewise, as one would expect
preferences for full time work were higher when individuals were the only
breadwinners in their household (63%) compared the overall rate of 50%), or
separately when their earnings from teaching were the primary source of their
individual income (also 63%). Thus a sizable group indicated community college
income significantly contributes to their livelihood and among these the
majority indicated that they desired additional employment.
Faculty prepared in traditional arts and
sciences disciplines appear to have greater reliance upon their part-time teaching
income, at least as indicated by their relative preference for full-time or
increased work. Thus, survey results show that 85% of the social scientists,
76% of humanities, and 74% of science faculty prefer more work than they
presently have. By contrast, those serving in non-traditional academic areas,
such as Public Service or Business, are somewhat less likely to seek greater
teaching employment. Mathematicians, curiously, appear to fall outside the
expectations for traditional arts and science faculty.
______________________________________________________Table
4: Sources of Household Income
______________________________________________________
Source: WFT Survey
Responses were to the
following questions:
Is this your primary source
of income?
Is yours the only source of
income in your household?
______________________________________________________
The final point to note is that many of the
faculty appear to have adjusted to this system as best they can. Those faculty
who want to work full-time reported that they taught an average of 3.33 classes
in the Fall quarter of 1999. Within this group, those identifying themselves as
depending primarily upon their community college earnings averaged 3.46 classes
per quarter. By contrast, those indicating that they were satisfied with their
teaching load reported an average of 2.17 class per quarter. The SBCTC, on the
other hand, reports that average workloads are lower, and that only 45% of
part-time faculty taught more than the equivalent of one course in fall 1997.
While survey sample bias may account for some of this difference, the SBCTC
figures, too, are biased because they omit courses that were not state funded
or that were outside the community college system altogether (SBCTC, Research
Report 98-4).
Some 248 of survey respondents said they
taught at two or more institutions and among these 90 said they taught at three
or more. This finding again varies from the SBCTC's finding that only 27
persons taught at three or more colleges, casting doubt on the state's
conclusion that only 291 faculty systemwide taught at two campuses. There are
several possible
_____________________________________________________
Table 5: Preference for More Employment Teaching
by Field
______________________________________________________
Employment Field |
Want
Full Time |
Want More Work |
Content |
% Want More |
Basic Skills |
54
(46%) |
23 (20%) |
37 (32%) |
67% |
Business, Data etc |
19
(36%) |
14 (27%) |
18 (35%) |
63% |
Humanities |
97
(61%) |
25 (16%) |
33 (21%) |
76% |
Mathematics |
21
(40%) |
4 (8%) |
26 (50%) |
48% |
Mechanics/Eng'rg |
4
(50%) |
1 (13%) |
3 (37.5%) |
63% |
Public Service |
25
(33%) |
19 (25%) |
28 (37%) |
58% |
Science |
20
(57%) |
6 (17%) |
8 (23%) |
74% |
Social Science |
20
(74%) |
3 (11%) |
4 (15%) |
85% |
|
|
|
|
|
Source: WFT Survey
______________________________________________________
reasons for the discrepancy. First, the
state's analysis was not designed to verify employment at private institutions,
nor at four-year schools. Second, individuals in the WFT survey were asked to
identify schools over the past three years, whereas the state board restricted
its analysis to a single quarter. The WFT survey is more helpful if the intent
is to garner information on the extent of the freeway flyer phenomenon over time.
Findings from the WFT survey suggest that the State Board's analysis may
undercount the true dependence by "part-timers" on upon multiple
courses and colleges. Even so, the State Board's report that freeway flyers
constitute 13% of the part-time FTE suggests a high incidence.
The main findings derived from the WFT
survey are not controversial. Clearly, Washington State relies very heavily
upon part-time faculty, and officials themselves believe that this reliance is
greater than is educationally justifiable. In investigating the problem, the
State has reached the conclusion that it is important to reduce this reliance.
The WFT's data suggests that, if anything, the State still underestimates the
extent of the problem. From the vantage point of the part-time faculty member
there is much to be gained by improving employment security. To the extent that
adverse employment and working conditions affect the community colleges, a
point which the State has conceded, the education students receive at community
colleges will be advanced by converting some part-time faculty positions into
full-time position and by improving the compensation package for part-timers.
Organizing Part-timers in Washington
Policy in Washington State has clearly been
influenced by a number of campaigns on behalf of part-time community college
faculty. One result, noted earlier, is that in opposition to the national trend
involving an increased reliance upon part-time faculty, Washington has
essentially halted that trend. In addition, pay and benefit conditions are
being raised, albeit at an inadequate pace, far for those faculty dependent
upon earnings from their part-time community college teaching. Much of the
state's progress traces its lineage directly back to two legislative decisions in
1995 and 1996. First, in 1995, the state redefined its unemployment laws
establishing part-time faculty as a special class in order to make it easier
for them to collect unemployment. Second, and perhaps more important, the
legislature inaugurated a Best Practices Task Force regarding part-time
instruction.
In setting up this commission, the
legislature had finally responded to agitation from part-timers that had been
going on since at least early eighties. Still it wasn't until 1990s that, under
Susan Levy's leadership, the Washington Federation of Teachers, seriously began
to champion their cause. This transition became even more pronounced when the
WFT employed Wendy Rader-Konofalski, herself a former part-timer, WFT
legislative representative in Olympia. Working through the union,
Rader-Konofalski succeeded in getting priority for the issue within the
legislature. In significant measure the WFT was spurred to by Keith Hoeller's
Washington Association of Part-Time Faculty [WAPFAC]. This an advocacy group worked
independently to creating another essential fulcrum upon which to pry open
state policy. Through direct lobbying and publicity WAPFAC maintained pressure
on both the legislature and the WFT, ensuring that the issue did not die in
intramural union politics. Together Rader-Konofalski and Hoeller--perhaps
unwittingly--created an inside/outside strategy that kept everyone on their
toes. Although disagreements have at times surfaced, WFT and WAPFAC's
successor, the Washington Part-Time Faculty Association have worked more
closely in recent years to good effect.
The two organizations have forged alliances
with the Worker Center, King County's Labor Council, Seattle Union Now, the
University of Washington's Labor Center, and the Center for a Changing Workplace.
Together, these groups have provided high visibility for the Permatemp and
contingent labor force issue. In the final analysis, consistent organizing by
rank and file part-timers over the long haul provided the muscle that led to
the creation of a state appointed Best Practices Task Force. The Task Force
created the basis for continued legislative action by officially recognizing
the abuses inherent in the part-time system and admitting that they arose as a
consequence of financial pressure. While the limited use of part-timers can be
justified in low demand areas, or where scarce expertise is needed, or even
when colleges can not flexibly respond to scheduling needs with their existing
full-timers, the state report acknowledged that part-time staffing had gone
beyond these rationales.
The Task Force found fault with a the
part-time employment system because it provided virtually no incentive for
faculty to commit themselves to the classroom, to provide needed service to the
campus, department or community, and because the system utilized poor
selection, recruitment and development tools. To counter these problems the
Task Force suggested several recommendations. First, academic departments
should develop a written policy on the appropriate use of part-timers to guide
their actions. Second they should improve the recruitment process to ensure
quality hires while simultaneously smoothing transitions between part and full
time positions. Third, the Task Force suggested that administrators should
provide written and early employment commitments for part-time faculty. At the
same time multiple quarter contracts were encouraged. Other best practices
involving evaluation, development, communication, support and recognition were
also put on the table.
To make earnest its support for the task
force recommendations Earl Hale, Executive Director of the SBCTC, announced
that the State Board would seek twenty million dollars over the 1997 to 1999
biennium to address faculty issues, including part-time salary and benefit inequities.
Ultimately the state authorized a maximum of 7.7 million dollars to address
part-time issues. Following this, a number of specific initiatives were taken
that, cumulatively, have begun to make a difference for part-timers. Most
significantly, in 1996 the WFT drafted and secured legislation to ensure that
part-timers who work at least 50% receive the medical benefits to which they
were entitled. A clear method of calculating percentages of employment time was
established to prevent the state from denying those claims. Summer benefits
have remained a point of contention and are included in a major court challenge
now underway. On a more positive note, the most direct indication that the
state takes the problem seriously was the legislature's decision, in 1999, to
dedicate twenty million dollars to adjust part-time pay upwards. In doing so,
the legislature abandoned language that would have settled for the SBCTC's goal
for part-timers--76% of full time pay--and appears to have adopted the WFT's
goal of 100% parity. The pay adjustments so far leave part-timers far from
either goal, but the actions stand in stark contrast to years of previous
neglect.
As a percentage FTE instruction, the use of
part-timers has not expanded in any appreciable degree since 1995, but neither
has it been reduced. Consequently, it is significant that after discussions
with the union, the SBCTC now plans to pans to change the part-time/full-time
faculty mix by adding some 360 full positions statewide. If the legislature
follows through on this commitment, Washington's community college part-time
instruction percentage could fall significantly below the national average.
Conclusions
Despite the real accomplishments on behalf
of part-timers there are ominous clouds mark the sky. As always, money is
extremely tight in Olympia, the state capitol, and the part-time situation has
been complicated by new state initiatives, one limiting taxes and another
increasing pay for teachers from kindergarten through community college. In this
fiscal environment nothing is certain.
On the other hand, buffeted by law suits,
lobbying, and public relations campaigns Washington's SBCTC appears poised to
resolve the situation, if for no other reason than to avoid costly liability.
The prospect of an expensive court suit has grown since December 12, 2000, when
the Vincainzo Case was resolved. To settle this suit, Microsoft consented to a
97 million-dollar payment to Permatemp workers who claimed they were wrongfully
denied benefits the company gave to its other employees. At the behest of Keith
Hoeller's WPTFA the law firm that represented those plaintiffs, Bendich,
Staughbaugh and Strong, is now arguing in a separate case that part-time
community college faculty are being denied benefits they rightfully deserve.
One irony is that this suit would have no little basis in law if the state had
not acquiesced when the WFPTA and the WFT pressed for, and secured,
best-practice legislation in the mid-nineties. The subsequent 1996 WFT bill
spelled out the method by which part-timer's eligibility to participate in
benefit plans was to be determined. The new lawsuit seeks retroactive faculty
benefits for up to twenty years, the time during which time the state
erroneously calculated hours so as to deprive part-timers of their pension and
health benefits.
In an interim decision, Judge Steven Scott
has determined last year that faculty teaching 50% or more are entitled to
summer health benefits if they work at all at during that period. If complied
with this interim decision may conflict with another high priority part-time
concern: the ability to collect unemployment benefits. In particular, many
part-timers desire unemployment compensation during summer and other times when
colleges fail to provide them with classes to teach. By securing summer
benefits, the claim of temporary employment may be weakened as part-timers
begin to look more like full time faculty, for whom a nine-month contract is
presumed to be full time yearly employment. Perhaps the ultimate test of the
success of the part-time movement in Washington State will come when
part-timers are treated well enough that they will be able to choose between
the reasonable assurance of multi-quarter contracts with benefits and
unemployment compensation during quarters when they don't teach.
In the meantime the law firm of Frank and
Rosen is pressing yet another case arguing that the state's method of paying
part-timers is seriously flawed. Presently, not only does the state not provide
reasonable assurance of continued employment, the plaintiffs in this case
claim, instead, the state misstates the employment relationship altogether. The
plaintiffs argue that community because colleges pay part-timers only for each
class-contact hour, the state violates its own minimum wage and overtime laws.
Although the case faces a variety of obstacles, it constitutes one more
pressure point toward the implementation of the best practices that enumerated
in 1996.
With the new legislative season approaching
lobbying will be intense. The Governor is asking most agencies to take a 2% cut
in their budgets. Such a requirement will not automatically brush aside
part-time demands for pay equity, benefits, and new full-time positions.
However, given the automatic cost of living increases voted in at the last
election, it will be much harder to garner political support to redress
part-time issues this coming biennium.
Bibliography
1998. State Board for Community Colleges,
Research Report 98-4, Part-time faculty in Washington Community and Technical
Colleges.
2000A, State Board for Community Colleges,
"Enrollments and Student Demographics," SBCTC Webpage.
2000B, Budget Request, State Board for
Community Colleges, SBCTC Webpage
2000, National Center for Educational
Statistics, Instructional Faculty and Staff in Public 2-Year Colleges), NCES
2000-192, May 2000.
1996, Best Practices Task Force, Report:
Adjunct Faculty Personnel Administration.