Is a Strike == a "Labor Situation" == a "Labor Disruption"? Only when they're framed the same

globeandmail.com

I've recently noticed I use a lot of parentheses in writing and I think its a side-effect of years of academic writing. Sometimes I wish I could represent parens in speech outside of talking under my breath. One place I recently noticed a lack of verbal parens where there should have been has been in the discussions of the strikes by CUPE 3903 and CUPE 3902 at York University and University of Toronto. Cheryl Regehr, Provost and Vice President of the University of Toronto, recently wrote in the Huffington Post (with a great response from a UofT graduate TA here) that teaching assistants rejected an offer of raising their hourly wage to $43.97 but forgot to add that with that increase in hourly pay their total hours changing (decreasing from 205 to 180). Without the information in that paren we can only see the TAs/contract faculty as greedy, unappreciative and spoiled brats. When you do the math the TAs suddenly don't look so greedy. Now TAs make $42.05 with a 205 hour cap for $8,620.25 while the proposed package is equal to $7,914.60, otherwise know as a $700 decrease! 

globeandmail.com

Regardless, the point the TAs/contract faculty are making is that UofT could offer $15,000 with a 1 hour cap or $60,000 with a 0.25 hour cap, or $247,355.32 (the pay of Provost Regehr) with a cap of 0.06 hours, but the problem is not the pay per hour. The problem lies in the cap of $15,000 in funding which is less than the poverty line for a single adult in Toronto. But I also suppose this $15,000 funding package is where the real problem lies. A number of people question whether a "part-time" job really deserves to be paid at a "full-time" rate, especially when the TAs are already being paid to go to school.

nationaladjunct.tumblr.com

Last week brought us National Adjunct Walkout Day and was quickly followed by these strikes highlight systemic problems in academia. Its hard to find data for attaining tenure-track positions that encompasses R1 institutions, primarily undergraduate institutions and community colleges, but the figure is likely much lower than how many want to. Although I don't have the exact figures, it seems like the number of students who think they can "go pro" and those who actually do are in line with college athletes' perception of their ability to go pro and those that actually do. Although a PhD should not only be seen as a path to working in academia, it is often the carrot used to attract students and outside academia a PhD is generally not viewed overwhelmingly positively. Broadly, the goals of Universities are to create and disseminate knowledge and that occurs through three avenues, research, teaching and engagement. Previously, I discussed some of the misperceptions of the goals of Universities and I see some of those issues creeping up in the strikes. 

1) We're training too many PhDs

Early booms in research funding drove up the need for labor to complete research grants which spiraled into the need for a large number of cheap trainees to put out ever higher and higher amounts of research in order to compete for more grants in a shrinking pot of money. Or put another way, we've created a system where tenure-track faculty, in order to be competitive for grants and tenure, need large labs of highly motivated trainees because without high output their labs can't progress.

In a similar vein, reduced funding at the federal and state(or provincial) levels increased the need for Universities to find alternate avenues of funding which led to increases in the number of students, in particular foreign students (as well as an increase in their tuition costs). This led to the increased need for more cheap instructors to teach the increased number of students. With the number of tenure track positions holding steady and an ever increasing pool of PhD graduates, with few equivalent positions outside of academia we've created an underclass of highly educated individuals with no where to turn except for part-time teaching work while holding out for a tenure-track position. 

2) What is the role of Universities and Colleges and what are students hoping to get from a college education

In Scott Walker's latest brush with education in Wisconsin we see some of the misperceptions of what college professors do. As I stated earlier the role of higher education is to create and disseminate knowledge. The triumvirate of higher education, research teaching and engagement map onto those rules with research to creation and teaching/engagement to dissemination. Across the scope of higher education we see the emphasis of creation and dissemination skewed to smaller or greater extents towards one role or the other with R1 institutions skewed towards creation and primarily undergraduate and community colleges skewed towards dissemination (with a number of institutions not fitting into this broad generalization). At large research institutions, teaching, defined narrowly as teaching a course, is generally viewed as a secondary responsibility. From the outside, that might be surprising, but when you look at how tenure is assessed (emphasis on research productivity, i.e., papers/grants) and how administration assigns instructors to courses (with over 60% of courses taught be non tenure-track faculty) we see why faculty at large research schools focus on research (which also involves teaching). 

While we recognize the value of a highly educated populace, a number of people question whether college is simply expensive job preparation. We're less than a week into the strikes at UofT and York and if you check the strike related hashtags on twitter (#WeAreUofT, #YorkUStrike, #CUPE3903, #CUPE3902) you find a mix of support from the TAs/CF and others in solidarity with a number of undergraduates either posting that they're mad about the strike and want to go to class or posting about the fun things they are doing in their "time off." Like the misperceptions of what Universities/colleges are for there are misperceptions about what students should be doing in college. If you go to college and simply attend class, take exams, write essays and work a part-time job then yes, college is simply job preparation, but in that case, probably not very good preparation. If on the other hand going to classes seem like a small part of your college experience because you're working, taking internships, participating in extracurriculars (whether its sports, music, drama, or student clubs) and challenging, stressing and growing, then college is both (excellent) job preparation and for creating a highly educated populace. 

In the end, both of these issues come down to how we as a society value higher education. Do we feel that investment in the research of colleges/universities and in the education of our populace as a whole is a worthy investment? If we don't value the research or Universities/colleges or feel that private industry will make up the difference then we should continue defunding higher education. If we think that our populace attaining higher education is not a worthy investment then we should pass the costs of attending both secondary and post-secondary onto only those who choose to attend. However, before we make those decisions we have to get everyone on the same page and understand what higher-education does and why it does it as well as agree what attending secondary and post-secondary schooling actually does for students.