3 ms·

The article suggest that some of these non-tenure track jobs are make work for spouses. I don't think that is a major use of them now. In fact, if it is then wh

The article suggest that some of these non-tenure track jobs are make work for spouses. I don't think that is a major use of them now. In fact, if it is then what is the problem? They should have the tenure track salary in the same household. My point is that the people taking these jobs are being foolish. They are taking clear part-time low paying jobs and then wondering why they part-time low pay income. The reason they are taking these jobs is because they can't find tenure track gigs. Okay, so they didn't succeed. That is no excuse for taking a shitty consolidation job and then bitching about the pay. >Why you think your experience at a graduate program Northwestern can be generalized to undergraduate teaching and is applicable to most other schools in the US? I'm not saying we shouldn't care because these jobs go to millionaires. But we shouldn't care because these jobs aren't meant to actually support a person. Judging by the fact that they are part time and low pay, I think it's clear it's not just Northwestern that views them as non real career jobs. In fact, several universities actually only let someone adjunct one class a year because it's not supposed to be a career. >Moreover, they are not all "willingly" doing so. Many are trying to unionize That sounds willingly to me. Of course they would rather get paid more. But their is a lot of supply for people who can teach these courses. Especially since the commitment isn't very high. These jobs are essentially volunteer gigs that you get paid a token amount for. But some people want to be a part of academia so bad they are willing to live in poverty to do it. That's fine, but that is their choice. EDIT: I should also note that schools are exploiting the glut of potential adjuncts. But I don't really have a problem with that. As you note, we exploit lowerclass workers. Why should I care if the PhD is getting the same treatment as a janitor. In fact, we should probably care less since these adjuncts would more easily find a better white collar job.

dalke 11y ago
I think the article went into the history to establish how adjunct track positions have historically been a low prestige position. It wasn't trying to argue that these are currently make-work position for spouses, just like it wasn't trying to argue that only men currently get full professor status. It then went from there to show that it's still a low prestige position. If it is instead meant as a 'fun side gig', etc., for people with high paying jobs elsewhere, then when was the transition from being a low-prestige job to one that millionaires will do as a sort of charity work? The thing is, there are multiple types of adjunct positions. For example, Stephen Wolfram is an adjunct professor at the University of Illinois math department. However, he is not teaching college algebra every semester. Instead, it's an affiliation where both sides get some prestige from it. I believe that your example of teaching a graduate level law class at Northwestern falls into this prestige category. But most adjuncts are not in this prestige category. > They are taking clear part-time low paying jobs and then wondering why they part-time low pay income. Like I said, many of them are not wondering. They know why. And they are trying to do things like unionize in hopes that it will get better. To which I'll add that part of changing things is to let others know what's going on. If no one talked about it, and there were no news articles, then it would continue to get worse. > Okay, so they didn't succeed. ... then bitching about the pay. Yes, this is exactly why union start. You shouldn't be surprised about their actions when history shows it's a core part of union nature. Just like I'm not surprised about people who responds as you have done, or I am doing. > these jobs aren't meant to actually support a person. While I think that every job should be able to support a person, at least when scaled up to full-time hours. (Actually, I think every job should be able to support a person and a child. And I think we need single-payer health care, liberal parental leave policy, and free day care starting at age 2. But then, I live in Sweden.) How should I decide which jobs are meant to support a person? Does the person offering the job get to make the decision? Is there government oversight? Is that organization funded enough to ensure compliance? Is there a cap on lawsuits? Can a university require arbitration to settle problems? When do adjuncts learn enough about the law recognize illegal anti-union actions by the university? How do they fund lawsuits if there is a problem? > only let someone adjunct one class a year because it's not supposed to be a career The article started with examples of where a driver for Uber was "supposed to" be an independent contractor, but California labor regulators ruled he was an employee. And of a FedEx settlement of a similar issue in California, and FedEx loss in Kansas. And of two trucking firms who lost the same issue. I can also point to the Microsoft's settlement some 15 years of a court case by people who were "supposed to" be temporary employees. So this "supposed to" isn't always the way thing are. You can say that those people "willingly" got those jobs. But the successful lawsuits show that "willingly" and "supposed to" are not that relevant to how the legal system works or how labor responds. As you must surely know, having studied law.
- lmm 11y ago
  > While I think that every job should be able to support a person, at least when scaled up to full-time hours I think it's widely accepted that any full-time job should be able to support a person. At the same time we want it to be possible for an employer to offer e.g. a 5hr/week position (which can be valuable to all kinds of underprivileged folk - those with health problems that make full-time work impossible, the elderly, teenagers - or as a second job for people in temporarily strained financial circumstances) without having to take on all the responsibilities of employing someone full-time. We've tried to implement policies that reflect that, but per the article we see e.g. universities limiting the number of hours that adjuncts work so that they aren't obliged to pay for healthcare. The gap here is people have ended up putting together multiple part-time jobs so they're effectively working full-time. This is partly an unintended consequence of legislation, but it's not obvious to me how to fix it - if someone's working for six different employers, what responsibilities do each have? How do we make sure someone fired from five of their six jobs receives unemployment, without giving it to someone in full-time employment who gets fired from their minor side gig? (Much as I support basic income, that's not a politically realistic answer yet - so what are the practical policy steps we can do today to move in the right direction for these folks?)
  - dalke 11y ago
    > it's not obvious to me how to fix it - if someone's working for six different employers, what responsibilities do each have? Single payer health care would handle the biggest issue, because it would make the employer not also be in charge of paying for your health care. Get rid of 401(k) and push it back into Social Security, to disassociate the company from retirement savings. Then someone with 5 jobs @ 8 hours/week will have roughly the same benefits as someone with 1 job @ 40 hours/week. The major exception will be vacation time and sick leave. I have no good sense of the problems there, much less solutions. > How do we make sure someone fired from five of their six jobs receives unemployment, without giving it to someone in full-time employment who gets fired from their minor side gig? Is that really an issue? How does that happen now? I presume the government tracks the employment tax payments, which are paid monthly or semi-weekly. These are linked to your SSN, which you used to file for unemployment. So it shouldn't be that hard to identify frauds.

dalke 11y ago

I think the article went into the history to establish how adjunct track positions have historically been a low prestige position. It wasn't trying to argue that these are currently make-work position for spouses, just like it wasn't trying to argue that only men currently get full professor status. It then went from there to show that it's still a low prestige position. If it is instead meant as a 'fun side gig', etc., for people with high paying jobs elsewhere, then when was the transition from being a low-prestige job to one that millionaires will do as a sort of charity work? The thing is, there are multiple types of adjunct positions. For example, Stephen Wolfram is an adjunct professor at the University of Illinois math department. However, he is not teaching college algebra every semester. Instead, it's an affiliation where both sides get some prestige from it. I believe that your example of teaching a graduate level law class at Northwestern falls into this prestige category. But most adjuncts are not in this prestige category. > They are taking clear part-time low paying jobs and then wondering why they part-time low pay income. Like I said, many of them are not wondering. They know why. And they are trying to do things like unionize in hopes that it will get better. To which I'll add that part of changing things is to let others know what's going on. If no one talked about it, and there were no news articles, then it would continue to get worse. > Okay, so they didn't succeed. ... then bitching about the pay. Yes, this is exactly why union start. You shouldn't be surprised about their actions when history shows it's a core part of union nature. Just like I'm not surprised about people who responds as you have done, or I am doing. > these jobs aren't meant to actually support a person. While I think that every job should be able to support a person, at least when scaled up to full-time hours. (Actually, I think every job should be able to support a person and a child. And I think we need single-payer health care, liberal parental leave policy, and free day care starting at age 2. But then, I live in Sweden.) How should I decide which jobs are meant to support a person? Does the person offering the job get to make the decision? Is there government oversight? Is that organization funded enough to ensure compliance? Is there a cap on lawsuits? Can a university require arbitration to settle problems? When do adjuncts learn enough about the law recognize illegal anti-union actions by the university? How do they fund lawsuits if there is a problem? > only let someone adjunct one class a year because it's not supposed to be a career The article started with examples of where a driver for Uber was "supposed to" be an independent contractor, but California labor regulators ruled he was an employee. And of a FedEx settlement of a similar issue in California, and FedEx loss in Kansas. And of two trucking firms who lost the same issue. I can also point to the Microsoft's settlement some 15 years of a court case by people who were "supposed to" be temporary employees. So this "supposed to" isn't always the way thing are. You can say that those people "willingly" got those jobs. But the successful lawsuits show that "willingly" and "supposed to" are not that relevant to how the legal system works or how labor responds. As you must surely know, having studied law.

lmm 11y ago
> While I think that every job should be able to support a person, at least when scaled up to full-time hours I think it's widely accepted that any full-time job should be able to support a person. At the same time we want it to be possible for an employer to offer e.g. a 5hr/week position (which can be valuable to all kinds of underprivileged folk - those with health problems that make full-time work impossible, the elderly, teenagers - or as a second job for people in temporarily strained financial circumstances) without having to take on all the responsibilities of employing someone full-time. We've tried to implement policies that reflect that, but per the article we see e.g. universities limiting the number of hours that adjuncts work so that they aren't obliged to pay for healthcare. The gap here is people have ended up putting together multiple part-time jobs so they're effectively working full-time. This is partly an unintended consequence of legislation, but it's not obvious to me how to fix it - if someone's working for six different employers, what responsibilities do each have? How do we make sure someone fired from five of their six jobs receives unemployment, without giving it to someone in full-time employment who gets fired from their minor side gig? (Much as I support basic income, that's not a politically realistic answer yet - so what are the practical policy steps we can do today to move in the right direction for these folks?)
- dalke 11y ago
  > it's not obvious to me how to fix it - if someone's working for six different employers, what responsibilities do each have? Single payer health care would handle the biggest issue, because it would make the employer not also be in charge of paying for your health care. Get rid of 401(k) and push it back into Social Security, to disassociate the company from retirement savings. Then someone with 5 jobs @ 8 hours/week will have roughly the same benefits as someone with 1 job @ 40 hours/week. The major exception will be vacation time and sick leave. I have no good sense of the problems there, much less solutions. > How do we make sure someone fired from five of their six jobs receives unemployment, without giving it to someone in full-time employment who gets fired from their minor side gig? Is that really an issue? How does that happen now? I presume the government tracks the employment tax payments, which are paid monthly or semi-weekly. These are linked to your SSN, which you used to file for unemployment. So it shouldn't be that hard to identify frauds.