<p>
</p>
<p>So the government is immoral for imposing minimum wages and time and 1/2 for certain categories of workers. You would have us go back to the early 1900s when labor was mercilessly exploited. Let me guess, you are on the exploiter side and not the exploited side</p>
<p>I’m saying that if you choose to use the government as a tool to impose your morality on others than don’t be shocked when others do the same to you.</p>
<p>I understand this is already done many times over but do we need to continue to add to the long list of forced morality?</p>
<p>I propose going back to a time when people were free to do what they wanted to do. So maybe I do want to go back in time a bit. Of course, we wouldn’t even be having this discussion if the moral impositions our government already enforces actually were worth the paper they’re written on. Forced morality is no morality at all, just tyranny.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Actually, I have conflicting thoughts on this. </p>
<p>On the one hand, I truly believe that both of us will see the end of the sinecures, as the days of unfettered spending growth, and poor correlation between performance and compensation are irrevocably coming to an end. The fact that they might come to an end through natural attrition is almost a given, because the ones who hold the power and enjoy the benefits will never voluntarily relinquish them. Hence, the attrition might result from death over what should be considered an orderly retirement. </p>
<p>On the other hand, it may take a lot longer than one could reasonably expect, as undoing the collusion and corruptive forces of tenure will be messy, and complicated by the growing forces of people who believe in different classes of working conditions and support a system that grants benefits to a few chosen ones in academia, and plenty of others in “public service.” The collapse will ultimately come from the lack of desire to share the bounties with future generations – pretty much inline with the imbalance shown between tenure-tracked faculty and adjuncts. </p>
<p>Simply stated, it will hard to eliminate the 20 years careers, the short weeks, the long vacations, the system built on an agrarian society that no longer exist, and all the perks that closed systems invent for the insiders. It will be hard but it will happen. </p>
<p>And, I truly hope you will be around to see that happening. For a number of very good reasons!</p>
<p>I’m not suggesting that the government should impose wage standards on Duquesne, beyond the standards that they impose on all organizations.</p>
<p>Duquesne presents itself as a Catholic university. Why do you not think that they should impose the demands of Catholic teaching on themselves, Madaboutx?</p>
<p>If they want to quit calling themselves a Catholic university, fine, obviously they do not need to follow Catholic teaching with regard to a just wage in that case.</p>
<p>^^</p>
<p>Driving that “Catholic” argument is really a road to nowhere. Duquesne might be a Catholic institution but it operates in the realm of higher education, and is not different from peer institutions. </p>
<p>Fwiw, the argument is also quite silly, as the Catholics have a long history of delivering education in this country at a lower cost than most, and often because of the abnegation of its ordained members. Fwiw, how much do you think nuns and priests who have devoted and are devoting their life to a teaching vocation make … in comparison to their peers?</p>
<p>If this was a case of unemployed 83 year old who hadnt made sufficient provisions for her retirement how would that change things? </p>
<p>If it was a case of an 83 year old who took a part time job knowing she only could work 5 hours a week, or maybe she sold piece work on Esty how would that change things?</p>
<p>Isn’t the majority of the problem here that an adjunct college position is perceived to have prestige and that seems incongruous to this situation?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Do you think that is not happening?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Perhaps for you, but not for me. (Because I really don’t see a problem despite what the union suppporter – who has an obvious vested interest – wrote.)</p>
<p>Duquesne used the argument that they were a Catholic institution to deny their adjunct professors the ability to unionize.</p>
<p>I think it would be most un-Catholic to use the argument of being a Catholic institution only when it works to the institutional financial advantage.</p>
<p>I don’t know whether Duquesne is meeting the standards of the teaching of the Catholic Church with regard to a just wage, because I don’t know how many hours per week Duquesne thought the woman needed to work to cover her teaching responsibilities.</p>
<p>It seems to me that that number of hours is the relevant one. I have no way of knowing Duquesne’s expectations for a teacher of introductory French.</p>
<p>Does Duquesne have a Ph.D. program in French? If so, do they have graduate students appointed as teaching assistants, who take sections much as the adjunct professor did? If so, how many sections do the grad students take, and how much are they paid for it?</p>
<p>Doesn’t anyone feel differently about whether someone makes adequate provisions for “retirement” vs. whether someone makes adequate provisions for crippling medical costs? The rate of inflation in medical costs has been extremely high, relative to anything else. I think it would be impossible for any family earning the median income to save enough money to cover the out-of-pocket costs of medical treatment for some conditions.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That is an issue that transcends matters of pure economics. It should be a matter of principle to deny the unions’ presence. One that is almost viewed as counterproductive and often times as cancerous, especially if history offers guidance. </p>
<p>And, fwiw, a position that has been “approved” by none other than the SCOTUS since 1979.</p>
<p>Not everyone is applauding the positions a la Georgetown, a school that has shown little spine and a great affinity to roll over – as the events of last year clearly did show. Must be the price one pays to live in the shadow of DC!</p>
<p>Here’s a text that speaks volumes about the union at GT, including about the spelling abilities of union leaders. Yep, it’s a matter of principals! And self-interest, one might say. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Its not going up be what Duquesne thinks the number of hours is. Pretty soon the IRS is going to reopen those talks, re the benefit bar. The number bandied was 3:1. Ie, one class is roughly 9 hours per week. </p>
<p>I hate to see this churn and churn over the Catholic church. As if. Doesn’t matter how.many times the idea is rephrased. If they feel they are paying a going wage, what do you expect?</p>
<p>Q, sympathy is nice. And then what? What does your dept pay adjuncts? For teaching. </p>
<p>The fact remains that 1-2 classes isn’t going to provide for folks.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>So are you then suggesting that a “livable wage”, a “just wage”, is by definition, above median income (on an hourly rate)? If so, should we call it the Lake Wobegone wage, since everyone is above average? :D</p>
<p>Catholic Universities in general don’t practice much catholic teaching. On everything from gays, abortion, etc., they are generally much more liberal than the Church.</p>
<p>Therefore they are being fairly consistent in not doing what the Church teaches.</p>
<h1>163</h1>
<p>xiggi: It really shouldn’t take long at all and probably I will live to see it. I’m only 57 and in good health.
I doubt it will take 20 years. If we have another economic situation like 2008, it could take a lot less time. However, it won’t directly impact me and I won’t be around long term to see all the repercussions. That does make me happy. It is a change that seems to have more and more support. I hope you are satisfied when your wish becomes reality. That is sincere, not sarcasm. This is how it happens: the public opposes glorified sinecures and distrusts professors and higher education in general. Tenured faculty die, retire or change jobs and the university doesn’t replace them with full time staff. The public thinks there are too many tenured faculty, so they approve. The university eliminates a department. The public supports that decision. When a department is eliminated, it is possible to let go all the tenured faculty. Alternatively, the university eliminates a particular position held by a tenured professor. Then sometimes the university hires adjuncts to teach the same courses, but calls them something different. Or just doesn’t teach them, because the public would prefer they not be taught. Yesterday I linked to this letter on a different thread:[Shocks</a> from the left | Letters to the Editor | NewsObserver.com](<a href=“http://www.newsobserver.com/2010/04/30/459881/shocks-from-the-left.html]Shocks”>http://www.newsobserver.com/2010/04/30/459881/shocks-from-the-left.html). I linked to this in another thread a while back [Pat</a> McCrory Lashes Out Against ‘Educational Elite’ And Liberal Arts College Courses](<a href=“HuffPost - Breaking News, U.S. and World News | HuffPost”>Pat McCrory Lashes Out Against 'Educational Elite' And Liberal Arts College Courses | HuffPost College) Obviously you don’t believe tenured professors bring anything important to the university. I hope you are right. I’m not interested in debating you. Besides, you have probably already won on this issue. Public opinion is on your side. Public opinion is going to be running many universities pretty soon. Anyway this is pretty far off topic and I apologize to everyone else.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I would think this goes without saying but obviously it doesn’t.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I am not looking for a debate. I expressed my view on the issue. Nothing more, nothing less. For the record, it is because I deeply CARE about the issues related to higher education that I prefer to be “involved” in advocating for changes as opposed to simply ignore the issues that impact our future. As I happen to think that changes and evolution are overdue, I would prefer an orderly transition over the brush changes. I also happen to think that the current model has been untenable for … a long time, and that many prefer to adopt an ostrich-like attitude. </p>
<p>I think that tenured professors are extremely important, but I also believe that the competent, dedicated, and progressive-minded professor should actually oppose the “system” that leads to tenure. If there is something I do not believe should carry much importance, it is the publish or perish model that has contributed to a whole bunch of worthless efforts and spending in the form of an abundance of research journals that only exist because there is a need for self-protection. It is mostly an insider and insidious game that serves few of the people who attend an university, and especially at the UG level. </p>
<p>Simply stated, I want to see a system of education that values the … educator enough that no “forced” protection is needed. I hope to see a system where the performance in the classroom is central to the development of the educator, and a much lower dedication to research and its facets that have grown beyond any semblance of economic integrity. </p>
<p>And, yes, I want a system that is based on year round teaching, and not built on fads such as MOOCs, or even worse “online” education crutches that only attempt to diminish the interactions between teachers and pupils. </p>
<p>Utopia? Probably!</p>
<p>Many of the posters don’t seem to have much compassion for this woman. It’s almost as if they feel she got what she deserved. </p>
<p>I find that creepy. … </p>
<p>I guess those who have good jobs and aren’t afraid of losing them find those who weren’t able to get those jobs as inferiors. There was a reason she had to work until she was in her 80s … and it wasn’t because she had some altruistic notion of serving students. She had to pay her bills.</p>
<p>No one forced her to take a job many if not most people do as a part-time job. As far as I can tell the pay scale did not change over the years she taught. I can feel sympathy for her while still believing no one did anything wrong.</p>
<p>I hear the same type of judgmental comments towards parents who have " troubled", even physically or mentally ill children, as if their parents caused their illness and could have prevented it.</p>
<p>People are apparently terrified of compassion, & think hardship is * contagious*.</p>
<p>What hard little hearts they must have.</p>