The Wall Street Journal reported recently on the growing unionization efforts among college and university faculty. As one who taught for two years as an adjunct faculty member at the end of my academic career, I can attest to the ridiculously low adjunct pay and lack of benefits, along with job security that rarely extends more than one semester at a time. Given the fact that today fully half of all faculty members nationwide are adjuncts, higher education administrators have virtually invited these unionization efforts. In fact, I’m surprised it took this long.
Speaking out against the unionization trend, American Council for Trustees and Alumni vice president Michael Poliakoff told the Journal: “Academic excellence thrives in being able to differentiate performance and when you move to things like single salary pay scale according to things like years and rank you jeopardize that unremitting pursuit of excellence.”
“Differentiate performance”? “Unremitting pursuit of excellence”? Let’s think about that, just in terms of the adjuncts. After all, they do make up fully half of the faculty ranks.
In my experience, as well as in that of adjuncts from other schools that I have gotten to know, it appears that adjuncts of virtually all ability levels are paid the same (low) stipend, regardless of their performance in the classroom. I’m certainly no fan of unions, but this is exactly the type of treatment that drives employees to unionize. Higher education administrators would be much better served to seek out and retain high performing part-time faculty, pay them closer to what they are worth, and market their qualifications to students.
Instead of simply opposing the unionization trend, better to ask why it is happening, what can be done to address the sources of discontent that are driving the organization efforts, and – better still – how to turn this situation around to strengthen the operation and marketing of the higher education enterprise.