Fighting On: Institutional Context

/in /by

Even without legal status, by acting collectively as a union, graduate student workers won greater structural agency. And barely a year later, union struggles have intensified at every major private university across the nation: Columbia (still!), Harvard, Stanford, Yale, the University of Chicago, Cornell, Duke, the University of Pennsylvania, along with many others – including USC. Every one of the aforementioned institutions has been caught acting in ways ranging from unethical to illegal, a trend that has been roundly condemned by scholarly associations. These universities burn through millions in legal fees in order to challenge election results in court, buying time as they hold out hope that the Trump Administration’s conservative National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) appointees will eventually come to management’s rescue. Setting aside the realization that our progressive-posturing, democracy-and-diversity-loving institutions are collaborating with the Trump Administration at the expense of their students – and given what we already know about the false educational and financial threats posed by graduate student workers – the question remains: Why? Why would USC waste resources upholding anti-democratic values that betray their own civic mission when the hypothetical losses that supposedly made them necessary are unfounded? At some point, it becomes unrealistic to see the arrangement as being about anything besides power and control.
 
We already know that USC harbors hostility toward unions on par with its elite institutional peers because we are not the first employees to attempt unionizing here. Last year, USC’s non-tenure-track faculty in Dornsife tried to hold an election that was thwarted by the efforts of Provost Michael Quick to sabotage the vote by violating federal labor law. In the Los Angeles Times coverage of the NLRB investigation, it was reported: “USC undermined the possibility of a free and fair election by giving raises to some non-tenure-track faculty at the Dornsife College of Letters, Arts and Sciences just before the vote in January [2016]. University officials also threatened that faculty members would not be welcome on the Academic Senate or other university committees if they voted to form a union.” This hostility is not new. Since the ‘90s, USC has fought bitterly against its janitorial, housing and hospital workers, respectively, when they sought a measure of dignity and security as employees by unionizing. More recently, in just the last few months of 2017, the administration has become aware that its clerical workers are trying to unionize and sent a menacing letter to them intended by provoke fear by deploying vague misinformation in threatening overtones.

Students AND Workers – Our Fight in a National Context

/in /by

Since the 1960s, graduate workers have struggled for the right to unionize. But while those of us at public universities eventually won that right, those of us at private institutions have almost always been denied it. The first decision by the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) to block our status as workers came in 1974. Almost a quarter-century later, in a landmark 2000 decision against NYU, graduate employees provided a brief that paved the way to unionize – which many did – only to have it revoked again just four years later in an NLRB ruling against union organizing at Brown University. Finally, the rights of graduate employees to form a union at private universities were formally restored by the NLRB on August 23, 2016, when the NLRB formally ruled against administrators at Columbia University. The NLRB stated explicitly that they saw “no compelling reason – in theory or in practice – to conclude that collective bargaining by student assistants cannot be viable or that it would seriously interfere with higher education,” affirming that “student assistants who have a common-law employment relationship with their university are statutory employees entitled to the protections of the [National Labor Relations] Act.”
The back-and-forth had to do with the question of the “primary relationship,” that is: Are we students laboring primarily for our own educational benefit or primarily workers providing services to an employer in exchange for compensation? The 2016 Columbia University decision was different for its acknowledgement of a rather simple point: This is a false distinction because, in practice, we are fully and clearly both. For years, administrations’ arguments against graduate unions hinged on the spurious claim that having them would erode the educational relationship between students and their advisors by allegedly inserting a harsh union bureaucracy into the middle of something which requires more delicate navigation. Given the nature of intellectual collaboration, this argument went, graduate working relations and conditions are more effectively regulated by the entrenched professional norms of the Academy, which maintains itself through a culture of collegiality and mutual respect. Administrations also claimed the move would adversely affect their institutions’ bottom lines, leading to fewer graduate students they would be able to admit and fund.
Existing research on graduate unions in public universities has long shown this to be false, but private non-profits remained obstinate that their situation was not comparable. Then, in 2013, three years before the Columbia University decision – and in response to years of unrelenting collective pressure by student organizers – NYU agreed to re-recognize their graduate union (having decertified the agreement they made before the NLRB’s Brown ruling in 2004), becoming the first private institution ever to voluntarily do so. Subsequent studies on the aftermath showed that, indeed, neither NYU’s bottom line nor its student-faculty relationships suffered as a result of collective bargaining. In fact, the relationships had by some measures improved – a (not surprising) consequence of having more clearly defined and fairly negotiated workplace expectations. This research become pivotal in convincing the NLRB in 2016 that denying graduate workers’ basic rights was clearly no longer empirically or theoretically justifiable.

Houses, Cars, and Massive Bonuses: The Perks of Being a University Executive

/in , /by

Over the past few weeks, we’ve talked quite a bit about the rising cost of tuition here at USC. We’ve also discussed how that money might not be going to the places you think. Like the classroom.
 
As the price of tuition continues to climb, USC has driven down the cost of instruction by hiring the majority of our faculty into temporary, contingent positions1 offering low pay and no job security.
 
At the same time, executive compensation at USC has skyrocketed. Take a look:
PayCompGraphic-copy4
 
As The Atlantic recently pointed out, the income disparities between university faculty and administrators are “an important indication of a given higher-education institution’s fiscal priorities”. We couldn’t agree more.
 
The widening wage gap between faculty and administrators is troubling, to say the least. But the millions in executive compensation are just the beginning.
 
Just check out all the perks:
 
USC provides President Nikias with a private car and driver.2
 
Allows President Nikias to live in a $2.3 million dollar, 12,000 square foot mansion rent-free.3
 
USC paid out over $2.6 million in executive bonuses in CY 2013.4 That’s a 54% increase since 2009.
 
USC pays for health and social club memberships for Nikias and other top executives.5
 
USC pays for personal financial planning services for top executives.6
 
USC made an estimated $7.5 million in home loans to top executives between 2009 and 2014.7
 
Tuition is rising.
 
Faculty are struggling.
 
USC executives are doing better than ever.
 
 

 
1. Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS). Title IV participating institutions: Public, 2 year and 4 year and above; Private, not-for-profit, 4 year and above; For-profit, 2 year and 4 year and above. Institution employees (excluding medical school)- all staff with faculty status that are Tenured, On Tenure Track or Not on Tenure Track/No Tenure System, Fall 2013 and Fall 2003. Contingent refers to all employees with faculty status Not on Tenure Track/Tenure System.
2. University of Southern California FY 2014 IRS form 990 received by request from the institution.
3. University of Southern California FY 2014 IRS form 990 received via request from institution and LA County Assessor records for 1550 Oak Grove, San Marino, CA. http://assessor.lacounty.gov/extranet/DataMaps/Pais.aspx
4. University of Southern California FY 2014 IRS form 990 received by request of the instituion and University of Southern California FY 2014 IRS form 990 received by request from institution
5. Ibid.
6. Ibid.
7. University of Southern California FY 2014, 2013, 2012, 2011, 2010, and 2009 IRS 990 forms. 2009. 2010, 2011, 2012 and 2013 990s retrieved from Guidestar.org on 1/27/15. 2014 990 received by request from the institution.
 

At USC, Our Administrator-to-Faculty Pay Ratio is a Major Problem

/in , /by

 
Last week, the Daily Trojan highlighted a very real problem on campus – a sharp increase in high-paying administrative positions that has “substantially outpaced increases in faculty hiring and (student) enrollment”.
 
This focus on the business of education, rather than student learning, is part of a disturbing trend in higher education that has been well documented at campuses across the country.
 
That doesn’t make the numbers any less shocking. Again, from the Daily Trojan:
 
“Amid concern over rising tuition, USC has seen a 305.8 percent increase in hired administrative employees over a 25 year period, while the number of enrolled students has only increased by 66.3 percent, according to a study by the New England Center for Investigative Reporting and the American Institutes for Research which looked at data from 1987 until the 2011-12 academic year.”
 
AdminBloatGraphic copy
 
This boom in non-academic hiring is certainly troubling, but these percentages only tell us part of the story. As USC hires more and more administrators, they are driving down the cost of instruction by offering our faculty low-paid, temporary employment with no job security and little or no benefits.
 
In order to fully understand the scope of the problem, it’s necessary to compare faculty salaries to those of USC administrators. Inspired by Laura McKenna’s recent piece in The Atlantic, we’ve pulled together the best data available on the growing income gap between positions devoted to the delivery of higher education, and those positions dedicated to the business of higher education.
 
As we’ve discussed previously, the majority of USC faculty are hired on temporary, semester-to-semester or year-to-year contracts. These faculty – often referred to as adjunct or contingent faculty – comprise 69%¹ of our university’s educational workforce.
 
Contingent faculty teach the majority of classes on campus, but despite their critical role, many are barely making ends meet. A recent survey of contingent faculty at USC found that on average, our professors are making $5,044² per course.
 
This means that a contingent faculty member teaching full time, or 6 classes per year, is making $30,264 annually.
 
Even worse, the vast majority of contingent faculty aren’t even offered full-time schedules, forcing them to work second and third jobs just to survive.
 
So how does that compare to spending on administrative positions? Let’s take a look:
 

 

As Laura McKenna points out, the income disparities between college faculty and administrators are “an important indication of a given higher-education institution’s fiscal priorities”. If we calculate the CEO-to-worker pay ratio at USC – in higher education this is a calculation of president-to-faculty pay – the numbers are striking.
 

President Nikias made more than $1.9 million in total compensation last year. That’s over 64 times as much as a contingent faculty member teaching a full load.
 

And it’s not just a few high earners. The average managerial salary at USC is $101,594 per year³. That’s over three times as much as a contingent faculty member teaching full-time.
 

For years, USC has embraced a business model of education that prioritizes administrative salaries over academic spending. In 2014 alone, the university spent upwards of $162 million on management4 – the 4th most of any institution in the country5.
 

It’s not just a boom in administrative bloat that should have us concerned, but also the rate at which administrative and executive compensation has outpaced spending on our university’s educators and investment in our core educational mission.
 

Tuition is more expensive than ever, but many of our faculty are struggling to make ends meet.
 

As USC prioritizes spending on lavish administrative and executive salaries over investment in student learning, it begs the question:
 

WTF are we paying for?
 

 

1. Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS). Title IV participating institutions: Public, 2 year and 4 year and above; Private, not-for-profit, 4 year and above; For-profit, 2 year and 4 year and above. Institution employees (excluding medical school)- all staff with faculty status that are Tenured, On Tenure Track or Not on Tenure Track/No Tenure System, Fall 2013 and Fall 2003. Contingent refers to all employees with faculty status Not on Tenure Track/Tenure System.
2. This is a calculation of the average part-time faculty pay across self-reported data in an SEIU Faculty Survey (Social Work; Cinematic Arts; Architecture; Public Policy), as well as faculty appointment letters (Letters, Arts, and Sciences; Art and Design; Social Work; Dramatic Arts; Public Policy). Average pay for reports of salary per hour was multiplied by 10 hours per week and 15weeks in a semester. Otherwise, appointment letters indicated pay per week, how many hours, and how many weeks designated per course. Pay per unit was then calculated as the total course pay divided by number of units per that course. Average per 1 unit pay was calculated, then multiplied by 3 to calculate the “Average Pay of Part-Time USC Faculty per 3-unit course.” For all faculty, the data was taken from the most current year or semester available.
3. National Center for Education Statistics IPEDS database: Total Management Outlays 2013-2014 school year for all Title IV receiving U.S. schools. Retrieved at http://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/datacenter/Default.aspx on 6/17/15.
4. National Center for Education Statistics IPEDS database: Total Management Outlays 2013-2014 school year for all Title IV receiving U.S. schools. Retrieved at http://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/datacenter/Default.aspxon 6/17/15.
5. National Center for Education Statistics IPEDS database: Total Management Outlays 2013-2014 school year for all Title IV receiving U.S. schools. Retrieved at http://nces.ed.gov/ipeds/datacenter/Default.aspxon 6/17/15.

Back to School: The Price We Pay in 4 Graphics

/in , /by

Fall semester is in full swing, and our campus is buzzing with activity. The first weeks of back on campus are always an exciting time for students and faculty, and this year is no exception.
 
This year, however, we’re paying special attention to university priorities, and working hard to ensure university resources are going to the places they’re needed most.
 
As you may have noticed, students are paying more than ever before to attend classes at USC. Since 2001 tuition has increased 92%, and this year will be our most expensive yet.
 
tuition
As tuition continues to climb, we all pay the price: students, parents, faculty, and the community.
 
 Many Trojans rely on student loans to cover the cost of tuition, and as a result, these students and their families are taking on greater amounts of student debt than any generation before them.
 
At USC, the average borrower is now looking at $28,474 in undergraduate student debt upon graduation.1
 
 Among all universities in the country, USC is ranked 5th in graduate student loan debt. That’s $460 million of debt to USC graduate students in 2013-2014.2
 
So where’s all that money going?
 
It’s not going to our talented Trojan faculty, who are working harder than ever to deliver a world-class education to students. Despite their dedication, the majority of our professors work in contingent, part-time positions offering low pay, limited benefits, and no job security. In fact, 69% of USC faculty work in contingent positions, hired on temporary, semester-to-semester contracts.3
 
contingemt
 
Being a professor – once a stable, middle-class career – has become a low-wage, precarious job with an uncertain future.
 
We have seen a dramatic shift away from investment in university educators and affordable, accessible higher education for students. Instead of investing in student learning, our university has continued to dump money into lavish infrastructure projects and bloated administrative salaries.
 
As evidenced in an analysis of USC’s expenses, “Other Salaries and Wages” remains the single largest expense category, and has increased twice as much as faculty salaries over the last 4 years.
 
expense
 
And USC top 8 executive compensation has more than tripled since 2001.
 
top8
 
Faculty are working harder without job security, for lower pay, and with less institutional support than ever before. Students and parents are paying more than ever, and taking on debt that could hold them back for years to come.
 
With assets totaling over $10 billion, our university has the resources and capacity to make drastic improvements for students and faculty. Instead, USC continues to drive the widening gap of income inequality in Los Angeles through skyrocketing tuition and unstable, temporary employment for faculty.
 
This corporate model of education runs contrary to our educational mission.
 
It’s time for a change. Together we can hold USC accountable.
 
 Our university needs to invest the proper amount in instruction, giving our professors the support they need to deliver quality education to students.
 
No longer can USC prioritize profits over the stability of student education. Students and families should not be faced with a lifetime of crippling student debt. Faculty should not be living check-to-check while our university rakes in millions.
 
Tuition funds should support student learning, not line clash royale free gems the pockets of wealthy administrators and corporate board members.
 
We are united to fight for a better USC, and this year we’re taking action.
 
Stay tuned as we fight for quality, affordable education for students and good jobs for faculty.
 
Get involved:
Sign up for regular updates and campus action alerts here.
Have you been affected by our university’s business model of education? Share your story here.
Share this image on Facebook and Twitter:
bts2
———

1 SOURCE: College Insight indicates USC’s graduates average $28,474 in debt upon graduation: http://college-insight.org/#spotlight/go&h=0ec593691290fb03da41effda3bf4911
2 SOURCE: Center for American Progress Analysis of U.S. Department of Education Data: https://studentaid.ed.gov/sa/about/data-center/student/title-iv
3 SOURCE: Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS). Title IV participating institutions: Public, 2 year and 4 year and above; Private, not-for-profit, 4 year and above; For-profit, 2 year and 4 year and above. Institution employees (excluding medical school)- all staff with faculty status that are Tenured, On Tenure Track or Not on Tenure Track/No Tenure System, Fall 2013 and Fall 2003. Contingent refers to all employees with faculty status Not on Tenure Track/Tenure System.