By John Hamlin
UEA President Elect
I have an idea: To increase our graduation rates and make sure students are as productive as possible; let’s require all students to take 20 credits a semester. I know, some already do, so why not bring the rest up to that level? We can then provide a mechanism by which a students can buy down the course load if they can demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that they are already working too much in some other aspect of their professional student life.
While we are at it, let us really delve into the work life of administrators. Let them also provide indicators they are working to their expected capacity.
What is the message behind “Do more with less?” One might just as well ask how can I extract more surplus value. Total compensation has gone down over recent years — benefits, real pay, loss of CE pay, and, for some, loss in university contributions to retirement. Meanwhile, the demand for service has increased substantially. The shift over the years for more research has not led to an equal reduction in teaching or service loads.
Once there was a time when our teaching was to be 65% of our workload. On average, that was what would have been about 15.8 credits a year (24 a year under quarters). Now, the teaching as part of the overall workload has diminished to, depending on the college and department, 50%, but, hey, we still teach the same amount without extra pay. Is this not the magical/mystical creation of surplus value? We understand that in one college on campus the talk is to take duties that traditionally have been considered teaching and move them into service. Is this not camouflaging surplus value? Sounds sort of like saying we need a more healthy diet and will do that by defining ketchup as a vegetable (and those that know me know I hate vegetables almost as much as exploitation). This we might rightly call the Wal-Mart model of blocks (expected to work off the clock without compensation).
To paraphrase Gandhi “... beliefs become your thoughts, Your thoughts become your words, Your words become your actions, …” Let us stop reifying beliefs about lazy faculty.
I am not convinced that the way out of our economic woes is to exploit people. I operate with one basic principle: People work hard and do what is expected, whether faculty, staff, students, or yes, even administrators. If we are doing more than our resources can support, then maybe we need to work in proportion to the resources we have.
Overview or history of workload
I have been caught saying this often, but I will say it here one more time so we all have a basic understanding of the history of page 22 of the bargaining agreement.
In the original contract years ago, trying to establish teaching loads was an arduous endeavor. After a very long and protracted process, each department finally produced the numbers that constituted their real teaching load. It was recognized by both sides that some flexibility was necessary to accomplish two things. First, allow for extraneous circumstances that would allow short-term adjustments in some teaching assignments, one-time fixes to unforeseen type conditions, like medical emergencies or one-time budget issues. The second part was to make sure that folks would not go uncompensated by administrators running amuck and trying to increase teaching loads. The individual max and a department max were created by establishing the average workload per program/department based on a three-year average and adding one standard deviation to allow for a temporary increase in teaching without having to pay overload; go over that max and faculty had to be compensated in one form or another (extra pay or reduced load later).
The department max helped to keep administration from artificially jacking up everyone’s load. A few contracts later, the average terminology was removed and a footnote added to reference the intent from the start. Later, that language was deemed unnecessary (a mistake, one might think) and it was removed. Instead of averaging every three years, since it really did not alter by very much, a table with the fixed maxes was in. So, the standard deviation of 1 turned into a fixed number of 4.5 credits (under quarters most classes were 4 and 5 credit although there were 1, 2, and 3 credit courses as well). With the transition to semesters, the 2/3 rule kicked in and all teaching loads were converted using that rule, thus 24 credits which was pretty standard on campus converted to 15.8. There was a push to standardize courses to 3 credits (a 4 credit course becomes 2.64). Resistance, led, if I remember correctly, by the hard sciences, resulted in a mixture of 3- and 4-credit courses as the norm. The maxes for both individuals and departments were also converted using the two-thirds rule at that time. It is also more likely than not that teaching loads for some programs have snaked up and how some programs are delivered has changed substantially. Now, a number of faculty are teaching beyond what was ever intended. Those programs need to be re-evaluated and brought back into line with a humane university teaching load.
A specific note concerning nonregular workload creep is important. A normal load for nonregulars is 150% of the norm of regular faculty. The formula for figuring non-regular teaching load is:
- Multiply the department/program max (on page 22 of the Bargaining Unit Agreement) times .85
- Then, multiply that times 1.5
For example, in Labovitz School of Business & Economics, the department-program-area max is 18 contact hours. That amount (18) times .85 equals 15.3. Now, that times 1.5 equals 23 credits. This amount would be the norm for non-regular faculty.
By pushing folks to the max, people’s percent time is pushed down, again artificially increasing workload in relation to compensation. Work creep for nonregulars is sort of like crushing or pressing people for punishment. Every stone one adds to the plank is harder and harder to contend with until there is one too many. We need to stop crushing labor while we still have air in our lungs.