<p>Very little in that story makes sense to me. But first of all, I note that it was written by a union rep, so let’s realize that it was above all an attempt to embarrass the university into accepting the union for adjuncts. I’m pro-union, and wish the adjuncts all the success in the world in getting their union recognized, but I’m also savvy enough to recognize an anti-management screed when I see one.</p>
<p>Now the facts–few people in their 80’s are working at all. They live on Social Security, pension benefits, and accumulated savings. That this woman had no resources other than two part-time jobs must have more to do with the way she chose to live over her lifetime than with her position at the university. When offered assistance from a government agency, she refused. And there is no mention in the article of Social Security benefits or Medicare, for which she was surely eligible. Finally, there is no reason to believe that this elderly woman with cancer suffered a heart attack solely because she was working a night shift. Heart disease is not that simple.</p>
<p>I’m guessing there is a lot more to this story than is presented by the union rep, and that eccentricity, poor life decisions and foolish pride likely played a bigger part in her situation than Duquesne–despite the ridiculous title of this thread.</p>
<p>I agree with MommaJ that there has to be a lot more to this story, and that the “article” is little more than attempt to demonize Duquesne University for their resistance to unionizing their adjunct professors.</p>
<p>Unlike MommaJ, I’m not particularly pro-union, but agree that this is a sad story and feel sorry that this woman didn’t receive the help she obviously needed.</p>
<p>While I deplore the way that adjuncts are used and abused, I think there may be something fishy about this story. She should have been receiving Social Security, for one thing. And Medicare, which would cover most of her medical expenses. An 83 yr old with that low an income would qualify for charity care at hospitals. She would qualify for meals on wheels, food stamps, and all kinds of services aimed at the elderly.</p>
<p>This story made the rounds a few days ago. The school issued a rebuttal that helps characterize the original “contribution” by the union activist correctly.</p>
<p>Adjuncts are, in some cases, exploited and that should be addressed. On the other hand, one ought to question the continuous obligation of a school to maintain the employment of someone in their eighties, especially since she was hired as a part-timer when she was close to the age of retirement. </p>
<p>The fact that the school did not offer medical benefits to an adjunct is also an obvious canard, as this person should have had a number of alternatives. </p>
<p>Interesting that this story takes place in Pittsburgh, the heart of that “charitable” union.</p>
<p>I adjunct at a catholic university and at a unionized public directional college. The catholic university is the worst I have worked for with regard to treating their adjuncts like we don’t exist. I get paid $2200 for a 3-credit course and I have a PhD. No benefits, of course. At the public, I can get health insurance if I have 2 or more courses in a semester, and there are additional benefits however proratedly small. Not that I could actually live on what I make. I don’t know what the standard rates are around Pittsburgh, but here around $750/credit is the norm. </p>
<p>It’s sad that this woman died in such a state, but that said, she worked there for years knowing the terms of the deal. Why did she expect that to change? I’m sure that was not her only option. As others have pointed out, there are many services for the elderly.</p>
<p>A lot of the commentary on the piece linked in post #5 concerns how colleges hire low-paid, part-time adjuncts to reduce costs. But even if all courses were taught by full-timers on a normal tenure track beginning tomorrow, wouldn’t that mean that half or more of those adjuncts would be out of a job completely? Isn’t it the acute supply-demand disconnect that is the cause of the problem here? How much can any institution be blamed for reducing its personnel costs as much as possible? If the number of PhD’s being churned out were to gradually decrease, the adjunct problem would eventually take care of itself. I see so much commentary warning undergrads not to consider law school, but I don’t seem to see nearly as much advice given to prospective PhD candidates about the perils of adjunct-itis. The message needs to get out that if you are committed to a saturated job market, all your options–where you’ll live, how you’ll be paid, what you’ll do day to day–will be very limited.</p>
<p>What I got out of this admittedly sensationalized article was the compensation of the President of this University vs. what it pays the Adjuncts. So yea, they can’t be blamed for reducing personnel costs as much as possible so long as its not their own costs being reduced. Very typical for the society we have become. Exploit whenever possible, pay next to nothing slave wages . . because it will help the higher ups pig out at the feast. Disgusting.</p>
<p>Adjunct work is part-time work by definition. Those who accept it need to understand the limitations. My own employer has eliminated 3-course adjunct positions to avoid having to provide health insurance for adjuncts per the rules of the ACA.</p>
<p>I have long believed that the overreliance on adjunct staffing by universities is scandalous, but it’s a matter of labor supply and demand. Lots of people want to be college teachers. Universities have an endless supply of well-qualified part-time labor. Part-timers don’t get benefits generally. While this story is certainly sad, I don’t think it’s the responsibility of Duquesne that this lady died in such straits. Employers are not required to give all employees full-time hours and benefits in any industry.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is an invalid comparison. Presidents and adjunct instructors do not have the same job. Presidents must gladhand and raise money for the institution. They must have political connections and economic clout. There are few who have those qualifications. There are relatively many who can teach as adjuncts. A president who is effective at raising money can be well worth a high salary. Granted, I’m sure there are college presidents who are not.</p>
<p>I didn’t say the President shouldn’t be better compensated, but I am pointing out the chasm between the two compensations. That is what is deplorable in our society, that there is so much of a gap between the people lucky enough to be at the top and the workers who actually produce for the employer. Remember, the President has nothing unless his worker’s are willing to work.</p>
<p>Well, the headline of your post is inflammatory. Adjuncts are skilled labor. If you’re smart enough to get a PhD, you’re smart enough to do a lot of things. Too many people hang on the edges of academe and allow themselves to be exploited for decades. They should move on, unless they have other sources of income and don’t care. There is a huge glut of academic labor, not because it’s unskilled, but because it’s fun and stimulating. </p>
<p>My advice to any adjunct would be this: if you cannot get a full-time position (tenure-track or term) in academe within a couple of years of finishing grad school, do something else if you need a full-time job with benefits. Leave the profession. It’s in your own best interests to do so.</p>
<p>I want to add that success at getting a f/t or t/t job can be entirely a crapshoot. It is humbling how many smart, qualified people are applying for each f/t job. Many adjuncts are truly excellent. There just aren’t enough slots for everyone.</p>
<p>Let me see if I have this straight. A union lawyer writes a glorified “Letter to the Editor” to the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette (on-line edition?) and then repeats it, footnoting his earlier publication as if it was written by the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, for of an on-line newspaper which touts various “screeds of the day”. Color me skeptical.</p>
<p>She died in poverty due to her inability to save money over at least 63 years of adult work life.</p>
<p>She worked two jobs while collecting social security. What are the odds she had cable tv over the last 25 years. She could’ve set $50 a month aside which would’ve been something.</p>
<p>She could’ve improved herself and gotten better credentials to get a better job with better pay. </p>
<p>Anything but this story. Of course, since she’s dead, we can speculate all kinds of scenarios. Maybe she died after a lifetime of doing what she loved and has no regrets.</p>
<p>I don’t see the problem here. So she didn’t make much money, what’s the big deal? She was willing to work for what she was paid, the university was willing to employ her for what she was paid.</p>
<p>I’m very sympathetic to the plight of adjuncts and their low pay but was this woman born at the age of 58? There is absolutely nothing about her earlier life. What did she do earlier? How did she end up an adjunct? </p>
<p>I’m not going to blame the victim so quickly because things happen but I’m also not going to blame the university because I’m not sure what they could have done.</p>
<p>Well, I take that back. The department could have done lots of things if the department chair wanted, but on a human level, not on the university level.</p>
<p>Yes, there is a problem with anecdotes stretched to make some universal point. And, even on an anon forum, we should be cautious before suggesting one story, written with a clear arc, is representative. Next thing you know, all elderly are suffering at the hands of universities.</p>
<p>Where was the nephew, while she was declining? She refused help, begged the “author” to call off APS. Sorry, but questions sometimes should be asked.</p>
<p>One’s opinion about the value of a person relative to their salary is irrelevant. Why does Judge Judith Sheindlin get paid $47M/year (the highest ever TV salary)? Is her work really worth that much? One can certainly argue NO.</p>
<p>But she and her franchise earn hundreds of millions for the show producers who are prancing their way to the bank to count their profits. Who else is doing this?</p>
<p>You think the President at University is worth $150K? That’ll be the president of the art design school and beauty school and heating tech school that puts up commercials during day time television. A school that you’d NEVER let your kids attend.</p>
<p>This populist notion that the Boss is overpaid is not borne out by the actual marketplace for higher education.</p>
Schools have used adjuncts for decades. We’re not all doing it because we’re too pathetic to find regular jobs. Many, if not most, adjuncts are doing it because they WANT part-time work. A lot of people with full time positions (in industry, consulting, etc.) pick up a night class or two to make some extra cash and because they like teaching. Those people don’t necessarily have PhD’s. </p>
<p>Some, like myself, only want to work part time due to family obligations or health issues or because their partner brings in enough money that it isn’t necessary to have both working full time. The “recent grads” I’ve known who were adjuncting for a living were in a temporary stop-gap state which only lasted a year or two until they wrapped up their studies and/or found a full time job somewhere.</p>