PRESS RELEASE

The California Part Time Faculty Association (CPFA) announces that it will be co-sponsoring the new “Part-time Faculty Teaching Load” bill, AB 897 along with the California Federation of Teachers (CFT). Introduced to state legislators by Assembly Member Jose Medina (D-Riverside) on February 20, 2019, AB 897 would raise the existing cap on the workload of California part-time instructors from 67% to 80-85% of a full-time load. Ultimately, this means that If AB 897 passes, all districts would have the flexibility to negotiate with local bargaining units for a new limit on part-time faculty teaching loads of up to 80-85% of the full-time load. In order to pass, the bill must pass through a series of hearings and be debated and scrutinized by various committees in both the State Assembly and the Senate. It must then win the signature of the governor.

CPFA believes, however, that the issue of the part-time teaching load cap should not stop with the passage of this bill. CPFA and our members know that true workload equity will not be achieved until all arbitrary and discriminatory caps on part-time workloads have been removed. 

For more information about this bill and other part-time faculty issues, contact:

John Martin, Chair, jmartin@cpfa.org

Raymond Brennan, Legislative Analyst, rbrennan@cpfa.org

For more information about this cap and its background, go view last fall’s 2018 CPFA Journal, or read the recent letters sent to Assemblymembers Medina, and Gonzales

Print
 

2 Comments

  1. Jennifer Lee March 30, 2019 at 3:32 pm

    I actually wrote a resolution OPPOSING this as a part-time faculty. Why? Because it allows colleges a less reliance on full-time faculty. I want a full-time job. I need a full-time job. I’m not willing to settle for an 80-85% job WITH NO BENEFITS just because it’s cheaper for the colleges. Working a 32 hours out of 40 hours/week job is 80%, and those working 32 hours receive health benefits. The 80% part-timers will not. This is further exploiting the part-time class. In addition, this is not increasing the amount of available classes, which means many part-timers will be left with less than 67% if someone in their department gets 80%. The whole excuse of “it will allow part-timers to devote more time to less campuses, therefore contribute to increasing the quality of education” is BS to me because many part-timers admitted they will continue to work multiple campuses at 80% at each of those campuses just because they can. Only a selected few part-timers will devote more of their time to one campus outside of teaching and office hours because they don’t have to. I do BECAUSE I WANT A FULL-TIME JOB! Did any part-timer factor in that in increasing the load to 80% will also allow full-time faculty to teach 80% overload? This is like giving a tax cut to the rich. It benefits those that are more privileged and really screws over those who are in the most need of full-time jobs. This also devalues the profession of being a tenured college instructor. What does it say about our educational system if students can get degrees from institutions relying on a bunch of contingent faculty? Don’t get me wrong, many of us are great. I know I am, but that’s why we should have more available full-time jobs, NOT this pathetic 80% increase. It’s some rich person’s way of pretending they’re all about helping out the part-time class, but instead profiting from the money they save for not hiring more full-time instructors. You know where the money goes? Administration. I can’t believe a bunch of so-called educated people don’t see through this crap.

     
  2. Sue Broxholm April 19, 2019 at 3:57 pm

    Dear Jennifer,

    We at the CPFA also feel frustration and anger over the lack of a realistic pathway for part-timers to move into full-time jobs. We abhor the reality that this unjust exploitative two-tier system has been allowed to continue for so long which has made it so difficult for so many part-timers to make a living and advance to stable full-time employment.

    The 75/25 law (which requires community colleges to have 75% of their classes taught by full-timers) has been routinely ignored by many colleges, and even when adhered to has not resulted in enough full-time positions for people already working there to move into.

    Major sticking points seem to be the huge labor pool out there and the cost of benefits.

    Presently, whenever a full-time position is opened up, most colleges receive between 100 to 200 applications, sometimes more. The reality is that with such a large labor pool out there, the colleges have little incentive to increase the number of full-time jobs when part-time labor is so much cheaper.

    Some colleges (but of course not all) have already started offering some kind of healthcare benefits for part-timers. Thus, a cap of 80% -85% would not necessarily prevent a college from offering health care benefits. However, for a majority of part-timers the current situation is still inadequate.

    Right now, the 67% rule has absolutely no influence on what a full-timer can teach as overload or hiring full-time faculty. Raising the cap to 80% – 85% will not change that.

    At CPFA, we would like to see an end to the two-tier system entirely and go to something like the Vancouver model in British Columbia. At Vancouver Community College, after working there two years and receiving positive evaluations, faculty members become “regularized” which means they receive something like tenure. Depending on seniority, they have the choice of working full-time if there are classes available. Since this is in Canada, they already receive health care.

    We realize such a model is unlikely to be adopted anytime soon. But we also realize that big changes often come about incrementally. In the meantime, we advocate for policies that will help bring part-timers closer to making a decent living while keeping an eye on the final goal, which is bringing about an end to this ridiculous two-tier system.

    Raising the cap to 80%-85% would help ease working conditions for part-timers, especially those who would prefer to not to drive all over to teach at two, three, or more districts in order to make a living.

    We realize that raising the cap to 80%-85% is not the ultimate solution, but it would be a step forward.

    We look forward to hearing any other ideas you may have that would help those part-timers who

    Sue Broxholm, SF Bay Representative

     

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

 

 

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

 
 
Back to Top