Having trouble viewing this email? Enable "Download pictures" or view it in your browser.
AFA header

AFA DIALOGUE

An Open Forum for Faculty at Santa Rosa Junior College

The AFA Dialogue has been created to air concerns of all faculty. The AFA Update will continue to be the factual voice of AFA, while the AFA Dialogue will encourage conversation and publish personal opinions about workplace issues and political concerns. We invite any faculty member to submit letters, articles, or opinion pieces. The opinions contained herein are solely those of the writer and AFA neither condones nor condemns these opinions. AFA reserves editorial prerogatives.

Hr Equal Pay for Equal Work

by Lara Branen-Ahumada, Adjunct Faculty Member
Kinesiology, Athletics and Dance, and Theatre Arts

Why is it important to focus on parity for part-time faculty now? It is no more important for part-time faculty members to be paid equally for the work they perform now, than it was for women to be paid equally in 1963 when The Equal Pay Act was passed. Parity is no more important now than in 2000, when the state legislature voted to support a part-time equity categorical funding stream, allowing AFA to negotiate the enhanced hourly salary schedules with the District thus increasing part-time faculty pay. Parity is no more important now than it was in 2008, when the Faculty Association for California Community Colleges passed their "Statement of Philosophy and Standards of Employment for non-tenure part time faculty" stating that FACCC "supports 100% pro-rata pay, 'equal pay for equal work,' for non-tenure track faculty paid in proportion to the regular and contract faculty salary schedule with proportional responsibilities in the classroom, office, and college governance." In short, it is as important as ever to keep pay parity in our minds as a necessary condition for a fair workplace, even if we recognize that, at this moment, it may not be possible to move toward this ideal condition.

When the adjunct categorical funding was about to be slashed in 2009, I naively hoped the District could find a way to redirect funds to preserve enhanced hourly salaries, but this hope proved to be unrealistic. The Board had no interest in looking for a way to mitigate the hit. At that time it did not seem to occur to anyone on the Board to acknowledge that equal pay for equal work is important to the college but that, given the budget situation, it could not make it a priority.

As a negotiator in 2009, when the extent of the budget crisis and the District's financial situation became apparent, I was of the opinion that during a budget crisis, when concessions were being asked of the faculty, was not the time to adjust salaries towards parity. In retrospect, it is clear that had the full-time faculty agreed to share the categorical cut, it would have only exacerbated the state of affairs in which full-time faculty salaries at SRJC, in comparison to the rest of the state, have plummeted further below the Rank Ten benchmark than ever before in the history of the college (since the Rank Ten methodology was established). Until Rank Ten is restored, I would not expect AFA to negotiate a parity raise unless the adjunct categorical funds were restored. As the bargaining unit, AFA is obligated to consider impacts on all faculty members. Given that Rank Ten benefits both full- and part-time faculty members, it needs to be AFA's focus. I get that!

So why am I harping on the importance of pay parity now, when I do not believe that it will be possible to move further towards this goal in the immediate future? First of all, I want us to remember that we do not have parity, by our own definition, and openly talk about that fact. In the big picture, when an employer pays one group less for the same job than another, it is taking advantage of a cheaper labor force. Whether this state of affairs can be justified by a budget crisis, other priorities, or the numerous reasons that could be given for why we are here, the fact remains that we are here.

Unless the college contends that there is a discrepancy in the caliber of instruction between the two classes of instructors, then lack of comparable compensation cannot be justified. In the private sector, full-time employees may generally be valued more highly than part-time employees and perhaps that view works there, but it does not hold up here. At SRJC (and all colleges) during each semester that an adjunct faculty member works, the college needs and expects this instructor to be as invested in the student contact part of their jobs as full-time instructors. Pay inequity creates a class system, pits part-time against full-time faculty, and creates a source of tension. Parity, in contrast, promotes a healthy, functional, and harmonious workplace. Keeping pressure on the college to acknowledge and commit to the principle of parity is therefore in all of our interests—this is not an "adjunct issue."

Besides the principle of equal pay for equal work, I believe it is important to remind the college of our definition of pay rate parity (a definition that was required of all Districts in order to secure the adjunct parity categorical funding), to help assure that if and when the adjunct categorical funds return, these funds will go back on the hourly schedules to enhance parity pay. (For more information, reference the 12.01.05 AFA Update "Pay Equity: *87.5% Pro-Rata.") You may well ask: Why would that even be at issue? Since it is "categorical" it can only be spent for the designated purpose, right? Wrong! In 2009 when categorical funding was cut, some categories were defined as having "flexibility" whereas others were not. Part-time faculty funding was one of the categories with flexibility (Academic Senate). According to the Chancellor's office Budget Update #6: June 16, 2009:

    With the items where flexibility is allowed, districts will be able to, after a public hearing, act to move funding to any other categorical (from both the flexible and non-flexible items). This flexibility will extend through 2012-13 fiscal year, and districts would be deemed to be meeting any statutory, regulatory or provisional language otherwise required for the categorical programs.

The status of part-time faculty funding as "flexible" opens the door to these funds being used for other than the intended purpose. It is unclear what will happen at the end of this fiscal year when the flexibility no longer applies, but one possibility is that it will be rolled over without much fanfare. In the absence of a true institutional commitment to parity, flexibility presents a potential threat to even the current level of "comparable pay for comparable work." (Academic Senate)

AFA has maintained a long-term goal of pay parity. Ultimately as an employer it is up to the District to take a stand on the parity principle: equal pay for equal work for all its employees. It's the right thing to do.

Work cited:
Academic Senate for California, Counseling & Library Faculty Issues Committee and the Transfer & Articulation Committee. "Why Should We Care About Categoricals?". November, 2009. http://www.asccc.org/content/why-should-we-care-about-categoricals

Back to top^

(Sent to DL.STAFF.FAC.ALL using the bcc function)

Hr AFA welcomes your feedback!

Submit comments, letters, and/or articles via email to afa@santarosa.edu or via fax to (707) 524-1762

AFA members who submit original articles of 500 words or more that are published in an issue of the AFA Dialogue will be awarded a Stipend of up to $200.