Here is some of the background information on the PT Faculty Union negotiations with MATC that is not twitter-friendly. The first selection is one that details in-full the origin of "minor league" comments about PT Faculty from MATC president, Bettsey Barhorst. The second selection details the most recent happenings with our situation.
PT Faculty Union President, Mike Kent, provides a recounting of his conversation with MATC president, Bettsey Barhorst:
While the meeting was intended to be one to one, Bettsy brought in Terry Webb at the outset. I explained to her that the reason for the meeting was to see if there was any last possible chance that we could avoid the looming storm clouds. I explained to her that my perception after the mediation session was that the administration has a very strong desire to maintain the current situation on campus as it relates to part time faculty. I told her that was likely to be a problem, as our membership views the current situation as unfair and unsustainable. I asked her if she believed the gap between full time and part time compensation was fair.Bettsy told me that the huge difference in compensation was "the way things are". I told her that we did not dispute that, but that we felt "the way things are" was unfair. I asked her to offer a philosophical or academic rationale for why the compensation for full time instruction should be so much higher than that for part time faculty. Bettsy had a variety of answers for that question.First, she indicated that for full time faculty, teaching is a career. It's what they do. They are committed to it, as evidenced by all the times she sees full time faculty working in their offices or coming in on weekends. She said that the college expects more from them, such as service on committees and work for their center. "We expect their whole life." She said that for part time faculty, teaching was just some extra thing they do in their lives.I pointed out to her that our part time faculty are very committed to their teaching, and that many teach at multiple colleges. I told her that our pt faculty spend many hours outside of class prepping or grading. I also told her that the extra work done by full time faculty with respect to committees is accounted for in their workload formula and that they get compensated for that work. I said that part time faculty also do much committee and center work, both compensated and uncompensated.Bettsy told me that if part time faculty were serious about a career in teaching, that they should apply for a full-time position, here or someplace else.I told Bettsy that there aren't many full time positions that come open, and that our members do apply for them in great numbers.Bettsy then told me that she had always wanted to be a major league baseball player. She asked, "should I be hired by a major league team just because I want to play?"I asked if she was suggesting that some difference in quality of teaching accounted for the difference in pay.She replied that "hey, everybody wants to be a major leaguer, but only the best get to play."I asked her if the model she was suggesting for MATC was that of a professional sports team or a Hollywood movie studio. I told her that I was confused by this explanation, because earlier in bargaining, the college had asserted that they recognize no difference in the quality of part-time teachers versus full time teachers.Bettsy replied that "well of course, the college recognizes no difference when it comes to just teaching a particular class." She did not elaborate further, so I did not get an explanation of what exactly makes part time instructors bush leaguers.Bettsy elaborated that the college only hires the best applicants at that if a part time instructor applied for a full time position and didn't get it, it meant they weren't the best teacher who applied, and that they should accept that. She gave a little shrug as she said this.I pointed out to Bettsy that the college places limits on the number of current part-time faculty who are eligible to be considered for interviews for full time positions. She turned to Terry and asked him if there was any limit on the number of pt faculty who could apply for a position. He said no, no limit on applications. I pointed out that the limitation is on the number of part time faculty who can be interviewed. She said "well yes of course, a limit on the number who will be interviewed". [note- the college takes their stack of applications and advances 12 candidates to the first interview. The limit has been that only 3 of those candidates can be current part time faculty.]As the conversation began to come to a close, I thanked Bettsy for her time. I told her I regretted the direction things were heading. I told her that our door would be open if she wanted to talk more at any time, and that I hoped we would be able to make the relationship between the college and the part-time faculty a positive one for all at some point in the future. Bettsy told me that the college had to make decisions that were best for the students and other stakeholders, and that she didn't expect everybody to be happy about that. She said it was best for the students if part time faculty were "flexible" with respect to re-assignment and "cost-effective" with respect to pay.
The following link is to another blog, Caffeinated Press, supporting us on this point: http://bit.ly/VqFwS
This is an article posted on the Capital Times, detailing the situation and providing an interesting view from MATC District Board lawyer, Jon Anderson: http://bit.ly/2MkSyn
The following was received in an email from Mike Kent to all PT Union members, refuting the claims Jon Anderson makes in the Cap Times article:
On the points Jon Anderson makes:-Just because other colleges also exploit their PT faculty doesn't make it right. (Gosh I wish I could think of a historical analogy or two to illustrate this point.) Also, Milwaukee Area Technical College and Waukesha Area Technical College both have significantly better deals for their part-timers, so Anderson is comparing us to the worst, not the best. (At Milwaukee part-timers earn 60% of the full time salary and are eligible for benefits).-The part-time faculty at Edgewood are non-unionized.-Teaching at the Technical College level requires both the degree requirements of a college professor and the certification requirements of a high school teacher. Comparing us to Edgewood neglects that fact.-MATC full time instructors and administrators are paid significantly more than their counterparts at Edgewood. For 2007-08, Edgewood Professors earned an average of $55,697 in pay and $15,587 in benefits. For the same period, MATC FT faculty earned an average of $75,849 in pay and $40,465 in benefits. MATC administrators average over $100,000 a year in pay, have benefits that match the full time faculty, and are the highest paid administrators in the Wisconsin Technical College System. (Salary figures from US Department of Education- Bureau of Higher Education Statistics, reported to the USDOE by the colleges themselves.) Is Anderson suggesting that they should be viewed as a comparable for part-time faculty, but not for full-timers or administrators?
Overall, the effort seems positive and well-supported, but it seems the (well-paid) MATC administration really wants to maintain the status quo. This situation is not limited to MATC by any means, which I must stress; this is a national situation, affecting all higher learning institutions. Mostly, this is facilitated by the degree-farm mentality that allows universities to accept more grad students and grant more degrees than there could possibly be jobs: all to keep balanced budgets by using grad students as cheap labour.
I'm sure there will be more to come ...
In solidarity,
the under-employed, the underpaid, the under-valued: the underground.
