People keep reiterating that it was her own poor choices that got her into this, but I don’t think we know enough to say that unqualified. </p>
<p>How do we know she wasn’t getting along pretty well and socking away some savings that would have been adequate when she was hit with a serious illness that ate it all up? The leading cause of bankruptcy is medical bills. It could happen to any of us that our best laid plans get shot to h in a handbasket by the onset of some dread (and expensive) disease. Then anonymous posters on a forum somewhere could pontificate on how poor our life decisions were.</p>
<p>I don’t think I was pontificating. I’m responding to the OP of this article thread only.</p>
<p>This woman was Medicare eligible. She also could have purchased a medigap policy as well…if her income had supported this. She apparently made a choice to remain in her family home, and work as an adjunct, knowing the pay level. </p>
<p>My guess is she loved her work.</p>
<p>What I am sayings…this woman did not die in poverty because of Duquesne University.</p>
<p>If an elderly person is living in poverty, don’t they get covered with Medicare as primary insurance and Medicaid as secondary? All of us should plan to have zero earned income and no employer health care coverage by the time we’re in our 80s; if this doesn’t work out, I don’t see any employer being responsible. What if she’s 103 and in really poor physical and mental health with the same insurance and financial situation as now - is an employer still on the hook to make sure she’s earning a living wage?</p>
<p>Not enough info to blame anyone, university, system, or the woman herself. Though each person is ultimately responsible for self, when any individual part of any community is in need, there is some moral responsibility to help out. Duquesne U and people who knew this woman may well have done so. That it wasn’t enough is a very sad thing.</p>
<p>I don’t know what choices the woman had. I see many people barely getting by on what they make and what they get from others. A hole in their subsistence net could be a disaster. I worry about my kids that they don’t find themselves in that situation, as there are more people out there lin that predicament with the education and ability to be doing more, than I had ever thought. </p>
<p>A cousin in my MIL’s family died in abject poverty, and no one really knew as he kept it a secret and did not invite anyone to visit him. Killed himself when things got too much for him to handle. Turned out he was homeless for some years but didn’t tell anyone. He was a subsititute teacher when he could find work and did all sorts of other part time jobs, none of them with any commitment of future income. When the flow came to such little amounts, he could not bear life any more. </p>
<p>We took in family members down on their luck a number of times, and now I don’t think I want to do it anymore other than our own kids. My DH’s aunt and uncle refuses to even take in their own kids after a tough run with some of them. </p>
<p>Though I agree that there are more adjuncts wanting full time work than not, I don’t think that is the argument to severely curtail the adjunct situation, (and I don’t like schools with more than a handful of adjuncts other than in special circumstances). I don’t think reducing the number of positions is going to make more adjuncts happy, as that would mean more would lose that job. Many use that job as springboards and resume lifters and find other work in the future, though not usually as a full professor.I know many who have spent stints of time teaching at community or regular colleges as adjuncts–many have retained the jobs even after getting other work. </p>
<p>The reason this situation is news is because is it unusual, but it does play on the fears of many in the adjunct situation.</p>
<p>I don’t like the assumption that some posters seem to have that adjuncts are inferior teachers. The study reported on in the above article refutes that idea. Granted, it is only one study, but it still underscores the danger in stereotyping groups of people. I am sure there are adjuncts who are horrible teachers and tenured professors who are horrible teachers and adjuncts who are wonderful teachers and tenured profs who are wonderful …</p>
<p>Supports my campaign to criminalize hashtags.</p>
<p>Beyond that its interesting that this article is much better than the usual Slate efforts. They actually sent someone on site to interview people. I wonder if this is some new direction on their part?</p>
<p>For those who don’t have the time to read the rather lengthy Slate article, the bottom line is that Ms. Vojtko was a hoarder and eccentric who refused help and over 40 years never completed the PhD that would have given her the chance at a tenured, full-time position. She owned a second home but wouldn’t sell it to provide funds for herself because it was completely hoarded up. Like many hoarders, she wouldn’t allow repair services in her home, so when the furnace broke she chose to spend the evenings in a diner and sleep in her office. As many here pointed out, she had serious mental issues, and to blame Duquesne for her death was ridiculous. I fully support unionization of adjuncts and don’t think Duquesne should be fighting it, but that has nothing to do with this tragedy, and the article by the union rep that sparked the controversy (and the unfortunate title of this thread) was a shameful exercise.</p>
<p>Unfortunately, the unionization of any group is coupled with the arrival and ultimate control by unsavory characters such as Kovalik, the manipulative union leader. In the end, the actions of the rep have little to nothing to do with the to-be-represented adjuncts, but everything to do with power and self-preservation of a dying breed of thieves.</p>
<p>Yes, I had mentioned the possible hoarding in an earlier post as I am originally from Pittsburgh and know someone who knew of her. She used the term “eccentric” in describing her and mentioned the hoarding to me and how a niece in particular had tried to intervene with no success . All in all, a sad situation.</p>
<p>Good point. Its pretty clear from the article that he knew the actual situation and yet choose to exploit it to benefit his union organizing goals. He intentionally injected this false meme and let it grow in the public discussion. </p>
<p>He did help Margret Mary file her EEOC complain and she was supportive of the Steelworkers union, but given her enforcement of privacy all the way to the end, he must have know this was exploitative.</p>