The CPFA Forum - The Parity Disparity

It's Not Fair! - The Parity Disparity

The official "recognition" by Sacramento of the unfair disparity in wages between full time and part time faculty members of the CCC's has given us the $57 million in parity money this year, money that has already gone into (and will keep going into this year) our paychecks here at SMC. Thank-you Governor Davis, et al. We feel vindicated, and even slightly compensated for this egregious unfairness. At about 68% of FT salary, almost 70% for those in English and Math getting office hours, we're getting there.

But with this victory comes the sometimes perplexing issue of just where "there" is. We know it's not in Oakland, but where, exactly, is it? Where, or what, is "parity?

It's not a moot point, since the enabling legislation says the $57 million equity money can only be spent on PT salaries until parity is reached, and then it can be used by the Administration in other ways, so as not to negatively reward them for getting to parity more quickly than others. They would get the money as a bonus, with no strings attached to how they spend it.

Many Administrators would thus like to set parity as low as possible, so they can get their hands on the money sooner. PTers should continue being paid less that FTers (though not quite as much less as before) because their working conditions and obligations are different; i.e, they're not required to be on campus as much, they don't serve on hiring committees, or contribute to departmental work as much, etc. If they don't do as much work, they don't deserve as much pay. That wouldn't be fair, they say, with straight faces. What's fair, to them? About 85%.

This is a porous argument for many reasons, but in a nutshell we believe that teaching is teaching, and teachers are teachers, and we all do just about the same amount of work per class that we teach, because we're teachers, and that's just the way we are. Some do it in departmental meetings, and some do it after class with students, but we all put in usually more than our fair share of time per class, only part-timers are paid less for it. We exploit ourselves, because we care just as much about what we do as FTers, and do as much work per class, but get paid less for it.

Thus one answer is that equality is fair, so parity would be a 100% correlation between the FT and PT pay schedule. And as our FA has stated quite rightly, since the State is going to make up the difference, it's really dumb to ask for anything less than 100% parity, since the less you ask for, the less you have to settle for in the end. Logical, unless, of course, you have another agenda in mind besides the welfare of part-time teachers -- like getting your hands on that money to spend on other things.

And recent arguments and discussions we have heard suggest that even at 100% we still may be selling ourselves short, if true fairness is the standard. There is an economic price that is paid for working part-time rather than full-time, the argument goes, and that has to enter into the equation if parity means, "fair." You have to put a price on the anxiety, the insecurity of part-time contingent employment, as well as on the tangible costs of commuting between campuses trying to stitch together a half-way decent living, and the opportunity costs lost by not being able to participate as fully in the professional and collegial life of your department and discipline.

So "what's fair" might be over 100% parity, per class, for a part-time who necessarily teaches less than a full load on a given campus. It other countries, such as France and Japan, we have learned that this is exactly the case; part-time teachers earn more per class hour than full timers do, to compensate for the fewer hours they work, the insecurity with which they must live, and the career opportunity costs lost.

In fact in the FT world there has been a specific price put on security in some schools. As reported in a recent Chronicle of Higher Education article, at DeSales University, five year contracts to tenure-track faculty have been offered (and accepted) at a 15% bonus over the base, if the teacher does not ask for tenure. Take tenure, however, and you don't get that money -- but you do get the security. Boston University has a similar program in its Business School. Lack of security gets a bonus payment for FTers, but is an insult added to injury to PTers, who have no security and get paid less for it. Now *that's* not fair.

In fact, in our darker moments, we imagine some harried part-timer keeling over at the wheel on the 405 from a stress-induced illness, and ultimately suing, or having his heirs sue the State for damages done to him by the style of life he was forced to live in order to work in the community college system.

Not entirely implausible, is it? And until there is at least 100% parity for PTers, so long as our Freeway Flyers are rushing between poorly paying jobs on distant campuses, it will remain a chilling possibility.

In the end, we know one thing. What's going on now is not fair, and a lot people statewide, nationally, and internationally know it, and are working to try to make it better -- and none of them are going to stop until we get at least 100% parity.

Martin Goldstein, CPFA Director of Public Relations
Santa Monica College