Cautious Yes

This is not a easy decision. There are strong reasons for both supporting and opposing the proposal. After a lot of deliberation, I'd weigh in in favor of the proposal with some qualifications. I share the misgivings voiced by Pat and others regarding the exploitation inherent in a position with a 4-5 composition workload, its lack of certain benefits, the possible institutionalization of a two-tier system. There is also the apprehension that this might reduce the number of tenure-track lines offered to us in the future and jeopardize our demand for a reduction of the 3-4 workload. The concerns are then two fold: one, what the proposal entails for the adjuncts who accept the lecturer positions and two, how it could have an impact on the department as a whole. I'd like to address these issues.



A 4-5 workload, I believe, is exploitative, however you spin it. Nor do I buy into the argument that if it is really expoitative then people won't accept these positions. People routinely concede to expolitation because they lack better options, eg. adjuncts. That naturally should not make exploitation morally or socially acceptable. Having said that, we have to examine our particular options. The choice is not between tenure-track lines and lecturerships, it's between adjunct labor and lecturerships. It is not enough to say that lecturerships are an improvement over adjunct work; the difference is huge. Lecturerships will offer the adjuncts a massive increase in pay (Alicia noted that pay will start in the mid-60s), job stability, health and pension benefits. For this reason, I suspect that there will be unanimous support for the proposal among adjuncts. And an improvement in the work conditions can only have a positive effect on the quality of teaching.



But it is still exploitative. And Veronica is right in pointing out that these lines do not allow for conversion to tenure-track lines. BUT it does not have to be that way. Lecturers are very much part of our union. The possibilty of conversion as indeed of other improvements in their work conditions (possibility of release time, etc.) will be things for us to fight for. It is a lot harder to ask for conversion of adjunct positions into tenure-track lines compared to such conversions from lecturerships. The bottomline is this: it is easier to struggle from a position of relative power.



Now, regarding the impact of the proposal on the department, it is of course hard to say anything with full certainty. Will this mean fewer tenure-track lines for us and make it harder for us to fight for a reduced course load? Like Devin, I doubt that this will happen. The adminstration came up with the lecturership proposal as a way of adressing the concern regarding FT/PT ratio. But there is another administartive imperative: of raising the college's academic profile. The idea of switiching from tenure-track to lecturer lines runs counter to this imperative. We have a hard enough time hiring faculty for tenure-track lines with our present work-load. If that is changed for lecturer lines with a 4-5 load, the quality of our hires in all probability will bring down the current academic standing of the institution, whatever that is. I think this alone will give the administration pause. And again as Devin correctly pointed out, one reason why our load did not go down to 3-3 was because it would adversely impact the FT/PT ratio. If there are more full timers in classes with the lecturerships in place, it might actually help our case. Second, again relating to the academic profile issue, is the question of retaining good faculty. We have already lost a few people in the past two years. Course load is a big reason why faculty tend to leave. The administration cannot be completely blind to these issues.

While I'd support the proposal, I think we need to consider a couple of things:

As Allison suggested, we could ask for 6-7 tenure track lines instead of the 10 lecturer positions. At the least, the administration's refusal will force it to offer reasons that might be illuminating to us.

We could bring back to the table our demand for a 3-3 load as a condition for our acceptance of the proposal. Of course they'll say no. But we could bargain. They could phase it in - starting with senior faculty/more productive faculty/ more administratively active faculty, whatever it is. There is room for bargain given that the administration is so keen on the lecturerships.

Finally, whatever the terms, I think we should ask for someone from the administration to present their case to our department at a meeting. We have strong concerns and at the very least they should come and meet with us before we sign in a formal acceptance.

OK, that's all I got! See you at the meeting.