<p>Actually, I said nothing about hypocrisy. That’s not the issue for me. </p>
<p>I grew up in a religion with the “slogan”: “No book but the Bible, no creed but Christ.” But the Catholic Church has a number of teachings (doctrine), which I think they feel are obligatory upon Catholics. To the best of my knowledge, the idea of a just wage is an element of the Catechism.</p>
<p>I just don’t think it’s an appropriate argument to bring to bear. I don’t like that use of the Bible or catechism against people because at the end of the day, all sincere religious people are working out their salvation and to only let he who is without sin to cast the first stone. The Pharisees tried to do that against Christ when he replied that way. But I’m getting way off track now.</p>
<p>What I think this woman deserves is respect. If were writing that article, it would’ve been about a woman that at 58 yo decided to teach the next generation and did so for 25 years. A model of service and dedication. A woman that deserves the respect of the community.</p>
<p>But all the compassionate people want to make her out to be a charity case, incapable of making good decisions and meeting her needs, a pathetic person in need of handouts and slave to the corporate meanies that denied her a more generous lifestyle. I find nothing more demeaning than anything else that could’ve happened in this woman’s life and it’s why I get a snarky toward the most self-serving faux compassion I hear as I read some of these posts.</p>
<p>So, I guess that I am one of the truly few in here that feels like this article actually steals from this woman what she most truly deserves which is respect and admiration not a stupid debate about livable wages, labor unions, catholic teachings and socialist policies.</p>
<p>I agree, Madaboutx. Some of us have said that a proud person that Margaret seems to have been would have probably been upset to see a union lawyer air her personal business like this to probably advance his own agenda (but of course that is only speculation) . The initial article and even the title of this thread have been pretty inflammatory and I’m not surprised that Duquesne felt they had to respond in some way, thereby prolonging the inquiry into her life and her choices.</p>
<p>Madaboutx, I am not using the argument “against” Duquesne. I am just saying that people who adhere to any particular religious tradition should practice it, on an institutional basis. I am leaving open the possibility that Duquesne did, depending on how many hours per week Duquesne thought the woman’s teaching responsibilities would occupy.</p>
<p>Your earlier position was that I was imposing my morality on Duquesne. Have you dropped that now?</p>
<p>My comments about the Methodists are not intended to suggest that Methodism is superior–I made them to indicate that my thoughts cover any religious group. I am still thinking about the case of the “Phantom Professor” at Southern Methodist University.</p>
<p>Madaboutx, your post would probably get a better response if you weren’t accusing people of “the most self-serving faux compassion.”</p>
<p>I agree that the Senior Associate General Counsel of the United Steelworkers seized on this woman’s case to advance the union agenda, and that the adjunct professor probably would not have wanted that.</p>
<p>I still think the real issue here is the medical bills.</p>
<p>
Adjunct salaries are typically set at some standard rate by the school. If they pay $1000/credit, then every adjunct gets $1000/credit regardless of which course they teach. Some schools give the more experienced adjuncts a slightly higher rate, or the PhD’s get more than those without. (I didn’t see where this woman had a PhD btw, was that mentioned somewhere?) </p>
<p>It really doesn’t have anything to do with the number of hours they think it will take since that’s a huge variance, not just by course but by experience teaching it. The first time through a course is generally more labor intensive, since in later semesters you can reuse your notes and even some of your exam materials. It’s not an “hourly” job, since by that reasoning the person teaching a course for the first time should be paid the most and a person teaching it for the 10th time should be paid the least.</p>
<p>Adjuncts and post grads have been abused, to my knowledge, since I was aware of both categories as an undergrad. Sadly, the practice has become more prevalent in the many years since then. I went to a college that had very few adjuncts, in fact, hardly any in the main undergraduate courses; they were almost all in the night courses for non traditional, mainly part time students who were also working part time. Now, the same school , though still not primarily staffed by adjuncts, has a lot more of them, teaching mainline courses. </p>
<p>On top of that, it has become the way to operate to save money, even before AHA, to hire more part time employees than full and just mix it up with the hours. It makes for an even larger underclass, as it’s virtually impossible to work mulitiple jobs even with part time hours when ones schedule is switched around.</p>
<p>I am at the age now where a lot of my friends and peered who loved and embraced adjunct professorships as working moms or just keeping a foot in acdemia, now curse it and want more as they want to get into full time mode or have lost their regular jobs. The problem is that there are more people who want adjunct positions thatn have them.</p>
<p>I know nothing about this particular professor, but for a university to have kept someone this long at that age is unusual. I do see this in the Catholic schools with nuns and pirests who are teaching, but hardly ever anywhere else. That she was of that age and still hanging in there teaching just one or two courses is quite remarkabe at her age. I have two mothers here,mine and my MIL, who are that age and they need full care. Is it the fault of the univerisity that she did not get more than adjunct status and more courses to teach? </p>
<p>I was shocked to find out some years ago in a union strong area that substitute teachers were getting min wage in a school district where the teachers’ pay was mighty fine. it all comes down to what the market will bear.
MOST money you can get in terms of financial aid</p>
<p>Quantmech, I’d like to throw a curve at you. </p>
<p>Since you brought up the issue of religion and, unless I misread your arguments, the issue of Duquesne having “some” obligations in terms of adequate pay and benefits, could we extend the dialogue to treatment of priests and nuns who dedicated their life to teaching? </p>
<p>Obviously, the quick and dirty answer should rely on the separation of state and church. In so many words, if the Catholic church insists on providing education service, that is its problem. And, the issue of providing for a reasonable retirement is de facto also a problem of the Church. In so many words, the position is one in which the government accepts the presence of the Church --and its billions of savings in education costs-- but rejects any financial input in exchange to not “mess” with the delivery of religious services.</p>
<p>In a way, this is the reverse of the coin used by the Church to reject the attempts to unionize its employees. </p>
<p>On the other hand, in countries that have found a way to maintain the separation of Church and State but also recognize that the Catholic Church has delivered a great service to the country (not to mention cheaper and … better) in terms of education. Since those countries consider that education should be free and free (cost of religious choice) the government is assuming the cost of the salaries of all teachers, including priests and nuns. </p>
<p>Food for thought!</p>
<p>I am no expert on the issue, xiggi, but as I understand it, if a priest or a nun earns a salary, it does not go to the priest or the nun, it goes to the religious order or directly to the Church. I believe that under canon law, priests are “dead.” That is, they cannot own property, they cannot sign contracts, they cannot serve as witnesses, they cannot inherit. This came up when my spouse wanted a member of a religious order to be the best man at our wedding, and he could not, because he was “dead.” When we sent the man special food baskets at Christmas, we learned that all gifts of food that are received are shared by an entire local group, in an order. Priests and nuns take vows of poverty (and others). The Church tradition does not view this as exploitative–more along the lines of “take all that you have and sell it, and give the proceeds to the poor.”</p>
<p>As I say, my information is very limited.</p>
<p>Duquesne, along with any number of Catholic universities has housing, facilities and care for their clergy. But not non clergy, and certainly not non clergy adjuncts. I am very familiar with this school, and they have many, many adjuncts, some very accomplished ones who are teaching there not for the money but for the privilege of being able to say they are on staff at a university, and those who also just love to teach. There is no need for Duquesne to raise the pay as they have people standing in line for these jobs, to get the university affiliation. So it is with any number of universities. When the demand for the positions is so high, the supply so pleniful, there is no need and bad business to pay more.</p>
<p>I think that there could be an argument to be made that Duquesne has an obligation not to charge higher tuition than they need to, in order to cover the educational services they provide. This would act as a force for paying adjuncts market rates for adjuncts, even if the pay did not fit the “just wage” model.</p>
<p>Prospectively, perhaps Duquesne should consider having teaching faculty, who handle a significantly larger teaching load that faculty with scholarship and research responsibilities, as a model to keep tuition reasonable while offering better positions.</p>
<p>I think it is proper to have adjuncts who have full-time positions elsewhere–with retirement plans and health coverage–who teach a course or two for the university, because they enjoy teaching and they enjoy being affiliated with the university. Some adjuncts do have arrangements of this form, and I think that they are beneficial to everyone. Offering a position of this type to someone who has no other employment, because people are standing in line for the fractional positions, still seems problematic to me. I don’t see a business model applying here.</p>
<p>[Workplace</a> Prof Blog](<a href=“Workplace Prof Blog”>Workplace Prof Blog)</p>
<p>This link says that Margaret Mary Vojtko supported the unionization of adjuncts, so why, then, are some saying she wouldn’t support the union attorney? It also says that Duquesne is playing the religious card as its reason for not recognizing the adjuncts’ vote for a union on its campus. The issue has yet to be settled; the National Labor Relations Board has sided with the adjuncts.</p>
<p>What? When finding a teacher/prof for course, making a full time positon elsewhere with benefits would make things even harder for those who at least have that tint toe hold on a job. The best person to teach the course should be the one who get the job. That Duquesne kept this professor on the job with her issues, hopefully meant that she was adequately doing her job. I’m sure they have no problem in fillng the position, When an adjunct leaves a job, it’s like what happens when a a rent controlled apartment opens in Manhattan, and even if death is the cause of the vacancy, the line for the opportunity is long.</p>
<p>
When I was a young woman one college summer, a couple of us went from factory to factory looking for summer work. At one place I was told “we have MEN WITH FAMILIES who are out of work”. Hinging your job offer on what you judge the potential employee NEEDS is a super bad idea. Probably also illegal.</p>
<p>ETA: Willowoak, the mods are going to censor that link, you can’t post links to private blogs.</p>
<p>Sorry about that. I won’t post another blog link.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Neither will I profess to be one! I do, however, remember reading about the plight of retired nuns and priest. Here’s an example of a recent story:</p>
<p>[Retired</a> Priests and Religious Struggle to Cope Financially | Daily News | NCRegister.com](<a href=“http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/retired-priests-and-religious-struggle-to-cope-financially/]Retired”>http://www.ncregister.com/daily-news/retired-priests-and-religious-struggle-to-cope-financially/)</p>
<p>In a way, there is a parallel to the story of Ms. Vojtko. And, I do not mean the parallel to be the lack of financial responsibility of the Catholic Church. :)</p>
<p>It’s true that I got a little hot under the collar.</p>
<p>I’m calm now.</p>
<p>QM - Your argument is still a very flimsy one. There is zero evidence that they didn’t live up to their values. Sammy Davis Jr died broke. Did his employer not give him a living wage?</p>
<p>You can’t criticize my employer simply by looking at what’s in my bank account. It wouldn’t be fair. Someone could call the school and find out how much hey pay. If they are willing to share that. Then we can debate the number.</p>
<p>When I got out of college I made $14,000 a year. I lived. So is that a livable wage?</p>
<p>Maybe. Maybe not if I knocked a few women and had kids to support. Should an employer pay more because I did that? </p>
<p>I drove a Ford Festiva back then too. What if I got a 300z instead. Should my employer pay more to accommodate my spending habits. It would make life more livAble.</p>
<p>willowoak, Ms. Vojtko may have supported the unionization of adjuncts but there is no way to know if she would have supported the union person getting into the details of her life in such a public way-his initial comments have invited even more comment and more scrutiny of her life. She is deceased and so obviously could not give permission to the union person to use her story to advance the union’s position. That is the problem I have with it.</p>
<p>No, I am not saying that the employer has to pay more to accommodate someone’s spending habits!</p>
<p>If you look around on the internet, you can fairly easily find the details of the Catholic Church’s interpretation of a just wage. The people who are explaining the Church’s doctrine deal with many of the “what ifs” that have been raised on this thread (at least in an abstract sense). Aside from the excerpts that I have posted earlier, it is probably better if I defer to the official sources on the other issues connected with the Church’s view of setting wages (not in a market-driven sense, but in a theologically driven sense). </p>
<p>I don’t think the Church recognizes any obligation to support the purchase of expensive cars.</p>
<p>I’ve posted that I don’t know how many hours Duquesne expected that the adjunct would need to devote to the position. Maybe they met the just wage guideline. (I’ve said that before, too.) In a normal circumstance, the salary for a part-time position ought to scale up to a non-poverty-level salary, if the person worked full time.</p>
<p>I do have one issue with the simple scale-up theory, which is that some part-time positions may preclude the worker from meshing that position with another part-time appointment. One example involves erratic scheduling or having an employee “on call,” who never knows whether he/she will need to come in or not; that one does not apply in this case, but does apply to some part-time positions. Another example, which might apply in this case, occurs when the hours of work are separated across the day, but not separated far enough to permit the person to hold another job in the interstices. A market-driven corporation does not need to consider this. In my personal view, a church-related employer ought to consider it.</p>
<p>So do they “owe” adjuncts multiple classes to make the living wage? And if there isn’t more than one class-?</p>
<p>And do they change class schedules to make block teaching- for adjuncts?</p>