Hmm, she’s an attractive Half-ornithological creature.

I really don’t think that it would’ve been appropriate for the Board of Directors to take a stance on the negotiations between two external bodies. We don’t know enough about the negotiations between WLU and the Part Time Faculty to take a stance supporting one side or the other. WLUFA does not, and should not, get involved in the negotations between WLUSU and WLU, and as such we shouldn’t be taking a stance on their negotiations, unless it directly affects students. The issue of how much part timers are paid, or what benefits they receive is not linked to students strongly enough for the Board to take a position on it. If anything, if part timers were paid more, it would take away from other areas of the university that students use (ex: 202 Regina).

While the point you made to me about part timer faculty traditionally being identified by students as less desirable than full time faculty due to their decreased office space and reduced time on campus is a valid one, these negotiations are not the appropriate time to facilitiate a solution to this problem. Instead, the Board should pass a motion stating that we support the conversion of part-time faculty to fulltime faculty, and/or the creation of more tenure-track positions - but we should not be making a value judgement on which side we believe should be entitled to ‘win’ the negotiations.

Furthermore, I really don’t think your point about me wanting WLUSU to remain neutral is a very fair one. You of all people should know that I have traditionally been an advocate for WLUSU taking positions on issues that affect students (ex: ICLRs, Underage Access, O-Week fees). I think that the motion that the board passed, which you neglected to mention in your post, in favour of better teaching evaluations and smaller class sizes was much more appropriate.

-Fraser McCracken

Way to make no sense Fraser!

You agree with me that the poor working conditions of part-time faculty directly impact students. But instead of pushing for an improvement in those conditions, your preferred solution is to create more fulltime positions. Fulltime professors are paid about $70,000 per year (plus health benefits, etc.); part-time instructors are only paid about $5,000 per course. It is much cheaper and more feasible to hire part-time faculty than to create more fulltime positions. Thus, the solution Dave suggested would be cheaper to implement and would have positively affected students.

And this is the appropriate time to take action — the negotiations are the only window of opportunity we have to articulate something meaningful. This discussion will not come up again for another three years. It is our role as student representatives to take a stand on issues that affect students. We didn’t do this.

You shouldn’t be putting words in my mouth, Tudor.

I never said that the poor working conditions of the part time faculty affects students. In fact, I explicitly stated that I don’t think there is a strong link at all. My point is that part time faculty affect students in a negative way because of the nature of their position. You’re right in saying that they are only paid $5000 per course. Many of these professors use this as a supplement to their income from a fulltime job they already have. What I don’t see is how WLUSU pushing for more benefits to these part time profs would affect the students. Let’s assume that the University gives them a big raise - 50% (which is unrealistic). So now they are making $7500 per course. This is still no where near what they need to earn to be able to improve the lives of students on campus.

I pose a question to you, Tudor. What exactly could come out of these negotiations that would improve the lives of students directly? WLUSU is not here to lobby on behalf of part time faculty unless this lobbying would directly improve the lives of students.

-Fraser

Put words in your mouth? Sorry, I had to untangle sentences like:

the point you made to me about part timer faculty traditionally being identified by students as less desirable than full time faculty due to their decreased office space and reduced time on campus is a valid one.

And now to answer your question: if these nogotiations would result in more office space, resources, and increased time on campus for part-time faculty, the lives of students would be improved directly (see my valid point above).

And I don’t buy your arguments. Especially when you say things like this: “Many […] professors use [part-time work] as a supplement to their income from a fulltime job they already have.” Could you please back up this point — this doesn’t agree with any of the information I have especially when looking at faculties like arts, music and science. This may be true for business, which is more skills based, but I’m not too concerned about business here.

The point I was making was that part time faculty, by the entire nature of their position, are not as desirable to students as fulltime faculty are. This is not due to the ‘working conditions’ created by the university, but due to the entire fact that they are PART-time.

I’ll respond to the points you brought up in response to my question individually.

More Office Space: Of course more office space would be great for part time faculty. I’ll even admit that I’m sure students would appreciate being able to talk in a private setting to their prof. However, how would this be feasible without hurting student life more than helping it? Space on this campus just doesn’t magically appear out of thin air! We would either have to build more buildings (a cost, which students end up bearing much of) or convert existing space to offices (classrooms? I’m sure students will love that). Just today Dr. Rosehart mentioned in a senate meeting that he has had requests to turn the 3rd floor exam floor in the BAB into offices. I’m sure students will appreciate writing even more exams on Sunday so part time faculty can have their office space.

Resources: I think you need to qualify this statement more. The term is too ambiguous. What do you mean by ‘resources’ that would be included in a collective agreement?

More time on campus: Again, the nature of their position means that they are part time. I’m not sure about your experience with part time faculty, but my experience has been that they often have other jobs that they do in addition to teaching. I know the prof in my psychology course works fulltime for a consulting firm. I’m sure there are some who don’t have fulltime jobs, and take a high course load, but I don’t see how raising their pay would allow them to spend more time on campus.

“This may be true for business, which is more skills based, but I’m not too concerned about business here.” Also, I’m confused by that statement. Why are you not concerned with business, Tudor? Are those profs not as valuable as profs in other faculties?

Fraser, you’re probably living in a bubble when it comes to what professors do on their other time. Business profs, and, as you mentioned, your particular psychology prof, work as professionals in other fields. Unfortunately, most part-time Arts profs don’t have professional qualifications beyond academia. Essentially, these profs are professional academics and researchers who *need* part-time professorships in order to survive.

I personally know several part-time profs who have families to support and student debts to pay off, but who face the horrific scarcity of full-time positions and the absoultely awful rates that they are subject to as part-time faculty. It’s appalling that these people spend 10-or-so years in debt and earnest study to be rewarded with terrible working conditions and a maximum $30,000 salary.

I have seen the loss of too many great part-time professors to think that WLU’s policies on part-time faculty compensation do not affect students. In the English department alone I myself have seen at least 3 part-time professors who have deeply affected my life as a student leave because of poor compensation and little-to-no appreciation from the WLU administration. Their departure alone, to me, demonstrates the neccecity for better treatment of WLU’s part-time faculty, and their deep impact on students.

Then what do you suggest, Craig? Let’s assume that the university gives the part time faculty a $1000 per course raise in pay and benefits from $5000 to $6000. I’m going to assume that the average part time prof teaches 2 courses per fall/winter semester. This means that the average part time faculty member would get a $4000 gross raise. I don’t think anything less than this is enough to justify to students as allowing these profs to spend more time on campus.

I believe Laurier has about 500 faculty members and approximately 50% of them are part time (this may be a little more or less). So, this means that we have about 250 part time faculty. 250 * 4000 = $1,000,000 per year in extra costs for WLU. Where do you think this money is going to come from? It certainly doesn’t just appear out of no where. What ends up happening is students will end up bearing the cost either through raised tuition (if the government ever allows more programs to deregulate) or a reduction in other things that affect students (DAWB deferred maintenance anyone?). Either that, or the university goes into more debt than it currently is (over $100,000,000) on an annual basis.

My bad. It’s actually 275 part time faculty members and 425 full time faculty members.

Source: http://info.wlu.ca/~wwwwlufa/info.html

So this means 275 * 4000 = $1,100,000

-Fraser

Well, Fraser, I’m not a financial expert, nor do I pretend to be. There exists a problem with the treatment of part-time faculty, and it needs to be solved. Neither you, nor I, nor anyone else not at the bargaining table should make pretentions of knowing the specifics of the issue.

You can’t assume any numbers here, nor can you assume that it’s not within the power of the university because you’re not privy to their financial statements. You are privy only to how much debt the institution is in, not any specifics about how they got there. All the motion recognized was that there is a problem and it needs to be fixed.

Yes Craig, but there are a million other problems with the university that need to be fixed (again, I go back to the DAWB deferred maintenance). But WLUSU can’t just identify problems without providing a solution for them. I think even the rough numbers that we’ve computed here show that any ‘meaningful’ solution would very likely cause a lot of financial hardship for the university, thereby causing either financial hardship for students or a severe reduction in other services that the university provides.

-Fraser

A few things here.

1. Continuing to herd part-time faculty into smaller and smaller spaces will not solve the space crisis on campus. The university needs to find real solutions to this problem. Whining because giving more office space to part-timers means taking it away from students isn’t a very compelling argument. Laurier shouldn’t continue to admit more students than it can reasonably accommodate.

Many of the faculty objected on the students’ behalf when the university decided, in its infinite wisdom, to pack students 3 at a time into residence rooms. Should the faculty have said, “no, treating students better wouldn’t improve MY life, so I won’t say anything”? I can just imagine what the Cord would have had to say about that.

2. I’m sick of this zero-sum argument WLUSU keeps coughing up every time there’s a debate on campus. Not every gain for someone else is a loss for students. Instead of treating faculty, staff, and students as entrenched camps protecting their turf, wouldn’t it be better to foster the sense that the members of Laurier’s community form a symbyosis? There are ripple effects — something that negatively affects ANY member of our community affects us all.

3. I don’t buy for one second this line that WLUSU is neutral when it comes to collective bargaining on campus. The directors know full well that labour movements rarely succeed without the support of the community. In my view, WLUSU’s supposed neutrality is a front for a largely right-wing, anti-labour position that seeks tacitly to appease the administration. They believe that a neutral position ultimately encourages the status quo, and as such, gives the administration the upper hand in negotiations. It was clearly not a neutral act when a group calling itself the Senate Student Caucus, or some such nonsense, voted with the administration, as a bloc, against a censure motion during the staff strike in 2002. A neutral position would have been to abstain.

4. Better conditions for part-timers would indeed benefit students. Just as bigger scholarships attract students, a better employment package would attract employees. If the collective agreement were better, Laurier would be more competitive when it came to attracting the best sessional faculty.

And I need hardly point out that people who feel valued and adequately compensated for the job they do usually want to go that extra mile.

John,

While I respect your position, I don’t see any solutions being offered. In my mind, simply questioning the motives of Directors/Senators doesn’t create a useful argument.

I will agree with you that Laurier should not be admitting more students than it can handle, which certainly has happened in the past. However, we’re in a situation where they have, and space, let alone office space is at a premium. Where do you propose we find the space to add more offices for part time faculty members?

I’m not as educated on the triple room situation, as I wasn’t at Laurier during that time, however it’s my understanding that individual faculty members supported students during that time. WLUFA never formally requested that the university do anything. That is in the exact position that we’re in now. Individual students are free to support the part time faculty - I know that some of them are. However, just as it wasn’t WLUFA’s place to take a position on the triple room situation, it’s not WLUSU’s place to take a position on these negotiations.

-Fraser

Sorry about that multiple post — having network problems tonight.

“it’s not WLUSU’s place to take a position on these negotiations”

Ah, but you DID express a position in your earlier post — namely, that it was a decidedly bad thing to give part-timers more space because that might mean space would be lost by students. That’s a position, and it’s decidedly against the interests of the part-timers. I don’t buy the neutrality thing for one minute.

Also, I’m not aware of a rule or regulation, of a constitution or charter, that explicitly forbids WLUSU from taking a position on any issue it chooses. This whole neutrality thing, unless I’m very much mistaken, is a line cooked up in the last few years by directors as an expression of disgust directed at (mostly liberal) students’ unions at other institutions that do concern themselves with issues of social justice. Nor is it written anywhere that student senators are required to cast reactionary votes as a bloc. WLUSU has demonstrated it will work with Dr. Rosehart and other members of the administration. But it has a tendency to give the campus the cold shoulder whenever contract negotiations arise. I would be a lot more convinced of the directors’ neutrality if they weren’t so cosy with the President.

The thing about the space crisis is this — the part-timers need more office space. Period. Whatever other issues may be in play, carrying on with conditions as they are is simply not an option. Morale is low. Work that needs to be done isn’t getting done because there isn’t the space to do it. The university has many important priorities, but quality instruction for students is (or ought to be) at the very top. Treating part-timers like sardines is decidedly not in the best interests of students.

The presumption that WLUFA did not take a position on overcrowding is simply wrong. The spokesperson for WLUFA, Dr. Joyce Lorimer, in her capacity as Union leader, and with the support of her members, spoke on the record about the space crisis and its effect on students. WLUFA does indeed take positions on political matters on campus, and rightly so. Every group on campus should use whatever influence it has to support members of its community. When the staff or faculty are in trouble, it affects us all. The us vs. them posturing by WLUSU is not in the best interest of students and does not demonstrate a concern for the broader community. Part of WLUSU’s responsibility to students is to strengthen the bonds that exist between members of the Laurier community, not to be divisive or protectionisr in its policies.

A prolonged labour disruption (heaven forbid!) is certainly not in the interest of students. And the possibility of labour disruptions increases when the community does not stand together. During the staff strike, the administration believed it could break WLUSA if it could turn the student community against the union, and WLUSU’s tacid approval of Rosehart’s handling of that crisis didn’t help matters. Indeed many of the student leaders in 2002, in their guise of neutrality, were scarcely able to contain their glee at the idea that they might help “break a union” in the midst of contract negotiations, nor did they even attempt to hide their contempt for WLUSA’s leaders and those who supported the union. This was the directors’ chance to get reputations as good little conservatives who knew how to undermine organized labour.

I can certainly understand why they wouldn’t want their motives questioned.

So one of two things is true. Either WLUSU believes that a bad result for part-timers won’t have ripple effects for students (and I don’t believe WLUSU directors are actually that stupid), or WLUSU is failing in its responsibility to help build the Laurier community. A divided campus where the Students’ Union concerns itself only with guarding its own turf and fosters a lack of empathy for those who work very hard to give them a quality education is not an environment conducive to meaningful work or study.

Because this discussion drifted too far away from the motions themselves, it’s time to bring it back on track:

Let me remind you Fraser that the board rejected the following motion because it disagreed with the “challenging working conditions part:” “We extend our gratitude to part-time faculty for the work they did under challenging working conditions.”

However, we had no problem passing a motion asking for smaller class sizes and better teacher evaluations. We passed the latter motion (which would be costly to implement) without offering any solutions.

“But WLUSU can’t just identify problems without providing a solution for them.” Lies. That’s exactly what we did when we passed the latter motion.

Thus, most of the arguments you have forwarded have been highly hypocritical, and I don’t appreciate this. We refused to make a political statement which would cost $0, but we had no problem asking for something (smaller class sizes) which would be expensive to implement. If you’re going to apply a certain standard for which motions to pass, you have to apply it uniformly.

John,

I read your second response, and you do bring up some good points. However, I pose a question to you. How do we know that the parttime faculty aren’t being unreasonable during these negotiations and forcing a strike? I’m certainly not accusing them of this, however how can we show support during these negotiations without knowing the facts?

Tudor,

Perhaps I should have qualified my original statement. Pointing out problems without offering solutions isn’t a big issue - the problem is that the solutions available are limited to those that would likely end up hurting students more than helping them. For example, if we were able to reduce class sizes or improve teacher evaluations, as the motion we passed stated, that would likely benefit students a great deal. However, if we were to raise the salary/benefits of parttime faculty to a point where they are able to spend more time on campus, the costs would be large, and would end up coming back to students.

It’s clear that you’d like to see the salary/benefits of parttime faculty raised. That’s fair, however I’d like to see you propose a way for them to do this that doesn’t end up hurting students more than it helps. I gave you a start by running some (rough) numbers in a post above. John, as for office space, what do you suggest the university does?

-Fraser

Dear Fraser,

How would you cure AIDS?
I suppose since you don’t know how it could be cured, you are neutral on AIDS.

Dave

A former student, and disgraced ex-director wants to give his two cents on something he knows little about. So listen up you ignorant fucks.

Firstly, Fraser, the neutral position, no matter how well-reasoned and well-intentioned, is cowardly and exactly the shit I’ve come to expect from WLUSU. For the love of fuck, of ALL people I never expected YOU to support neutrality. Believe me, part-timers are exploited, plain and simple, which sucks. I guess it’s not any of the business of WLUSU, but I sure think sticking together with the other Unions on campus is better than neutrality. Assume they are bargaining in good faith, and don’t worry your pretty little heads over where the money is coming from. That’s admin’s problem. Hell, if tuition goes up, it’ll actually be good for students because maybe it’ll make people give a shit about the fucked-up state of education for once in their pathetic lives.

Tudor, sorry, but I think your points suck, and I find your meta-rhetoric is tiring (and I’m sure you love me too). I don’t care if I’m being an ass by saying this, cus honestly, if you can’t communicate your points across sensibly, then don’t bother. I find you just confuse the issue more than anything, and after reading over your arguments, I don’t even know what you’re trying to say.

John, let’s not get too Marxian in analysis here, especially when applying intention to previous actions of previous idiot student leaders. While I don’t agree with Fraser 100% here, I can appreciate his pragmatism when it comes to the negotiations. Students will be affected by this contract somehow.

Dave: I love you, yet hate you for showing me this link. I will never be back here again, or at least until I’m bored again.

Sincerely, an ex-director, idiot, asshole, and cocksucker,

Michael Borrelli

Mike,

Nice to hear from you again ;)

To be honest with you, I’d really like to see people paid what they are worth. And I think parttime faculty, many of which have put countless years into graduate degrees, are worth a great deal. However, in this case, I have to separate my personal views from my views as a representative of students. You’re right in saying that students will be affected by this contract. I think the board made the right decision in pointing out the items that could be added to the contract that would best benefit students. Frankly, it isn’t our business as representatives of students to evaluate how much the university pays its employees.

Dave,

Thank you for comparing my position on WLUSU’s role in labour negotiations to the AIDS. You sure have struck your point home by claiming that I am neutral on a disease that kills millions. Perhaps you should go ahead and claim that based on my position on contract negotiations that I am neutral on cancer, drinking and driving, murder and war.

Forgive the sarcasm, but frankly I think that point was just insulting.

-Fraser

“if you can’t communicate your points across sensibly, then don’t bother”

Mike, you’re absolutely right — if you can’t communicate your point sensibly you should just fuck off. Your ranting is pointless and adds nothing to the discussion.

“Your ranting is pointless and adds nothing to the discussion.” Ah yes. As opposed to this gem:

“Thus, most of the arguments you have forwarded have been highly hypocritical, and I don’t appreciate this. We refused to make a political statement which would cost $0, but we had no problem asking for something (smaller class sizes) which would be expensive to implement.”

Uh-huh. You mean the loaded…err…political statement to that working conditions were un-dandy? And I suppose you’re mentioning that because you don’t want them improved? And I suppose that improving those conditions would cost $0, something that I think Fraser is correct in refuting? Rrrrright…

Sorry Fraser,

I didn’t mean to compare your position to the position I put into your mouth on AIDS. I meant to compare your use of logic to the one I expressed. I do apologize for making you sound like a jerk. My point was the same one that Tudor made earlier: when you point out a problem, you are not responsible for coming up with a specific solution to that problem. Life is not a case study. I respect the fact that you feel responsibility for trying to come up with solutions, but sometimes the solution is out of your hands.

The ideal solution for this issue is more money (ie salary), physical resources (ie office space), intellectual resources (ie help with research, being paid for research), job-security (longer contracts). The best way to achieve this is probably more money from the government. In order for us to achieve that goal, it is important that the public (ie students, admin, voters) be informed that Universities are underfunded.

Representative democracy is based on the idea of leadership. We are not responsible just to represent what students think; we should also attempt to draw attention to things we find problematic so that others come to share those opinions. I encourage you to write a letter to the Cord, WLU and WLUFA as I am going to.

-Dave

We can all agree that the Bouncil (Brantford Campus Council) smells might fine, though, can’t we? And they looked so swanky.

I apologize if I’m reiterating what anyone has stated. If I do, slap me in my stupid face. A big part of finding a solution is recognizing a problem. If there is no “challenging working conditions” then what is there to correct? We missed admitting that there is a problem with current working conditions. Perhaps the solution isn’t more institutional support, but we didn’t even say there was a problem in the first place.

In some cases, I’m simply unwilling to seperate my personal views from that of the students because I feel as though I’m representing future faculty, women (and men) who will go on to be professors and deal with these working conditions. Considering that I myself am (hopefully) going into teaching, this is a topic in which I am unwilling to seperate the political from the personal. That good old feminist slogan “the personal is political” is relevant here, especially considering the gender discrepancies between the part time/contract and full time staff with respect to both pay and tenure. I think you’re all smart enough that I don’t need to throw numbers at you. I just hope the negotiations are going well. Perhaps I shall email them to enquire? As a concerned student… ;)

I agree with Dave and Alysia. The BOD’s motion did nothing, not that I”m surprised. Honestly, it sickens me to know that as a STUDENTS’ UNION we (and I say we because the people in that board room represent all of us) couldn’t formally state that the working conditions for part-time faculty are “challenging” at best, and that we appreciate them and their attempts at negotiation.

To be perfectly honest, passing the ORIGINAL motion wouldn’t have really been doing anything either, I think the wording should have been much stronger but what do I know, I’m from Utopia.

CLEARLY the part-time faculty (across ALL disciplines) are under-paid, over-worked and crammed into horrible communal cubby-holes.

Standing up for the part-time faculty in a time of negotiation sends the message that students recognize this overt problem and want it to change, nay, it HAS to change.

Professors do not stay at this school because it doesn’t offer many fulll-time positions, and they cannot AFFORD to stay working under part-time conditions.

We have lost (in the English department alone) professors like Dr. James Allard and Dr. Adam Sol (two of the finest teachers I’ve ever had) and I worry from year to year that I am going to return and profs like Dr. Michelle Kramer and Dr. Jason Haslam will be gone as well.

I don’t think anyone can argue that supporting the part-timers will HURT the students more than it will HELP them. Fraser you make it sound as if students who support the profs will be shelling out their lunch money for fancy new offices and huge raises. That is ridiculous.

The bottom line is that conditions MUST improve somehow or there will be no one left to teach. I recall speeches given by the Dean of Business during the deregulation meetings about how “Laurier must remain competitive in ordrer to attract the quality profs that other schools are able to attract”.

The solution in that case was to bleed the students dry year after year through deregulated tuition. Not the path I would have taken, and if the STUDENTS had stood up for themselves perhaps that vote would have not gone through and the university would be forced to turn to their “alternate measures” to get the funds. (Pressure the government like they should be doing in the first place). Student action can make all the difference. Student INaction can as well, in the most negative way.

As a student I can say that one of the most important things to me at this university is quality education - wait, it’s the MOST important thing, that’s what I’m PAYING for. If I don’t have quality professors who are involved in the Laurier community and avilable for personal consultation then I might as well sit at home and take distance Ed.

If one of the larger classrooms in the DAWB has to be converted to offices (like one was for Full time faculty this year) so be it - I want smaller class sizes anyway. If HALF of that giant exam room can be converted into valuable office space that actually gets USED most of the year, so be it. That place is creepy anyhow. If St. Mike’s got bull-dozed and turned into a nice office building and computer centre for Arts students, I’d be a happy, happy kid. But this “comment” has gone on long enough.

For once I would like to see the students stand up for something. This is a perfect opportunity! It’s selfish and everything, it’s PERFECT for WLUSU, I’m not sure how they don’t see that. I guess I can be thankful that they didn’t pass a motion explictly AGAINST “part-time staff who plague our prestine campus” or something. That’s a plus. That gives me hope, and it should give everyone else hope too. So write a letter already! Send it to everyone and show that you’re not entirely ignorant of your own self-interests!

Let me just start off by saying that I support the motion introduced to the Board wholeheartedly, and the only concern I had with it was the revision to teacher evaluations (past experience has taught me that they are useless)

That said, however, Ikabod, if you lose classroom space in the DAWB, or St Michael’s, or even half of that exam room, you inconvienience current students. Losing space in the DAWB means losing classes, as capacity is at an all time high. Bulldozing St Mike’s would do the same thing, and the benefits wouldn’t be felt by those currently enrolled, but by those here in the future. While it would be nice if we were all altruistic and sacrificed our own benefits for an incoming class, I’m not paying to attend a university for that. That exam room, although currently horribly underutilized, is to prevent big courses from scheduling exams on Friday/Saturday/Sunday, giving students the rest days that are needed in order to either complete work, or to avoid getting completely burned out.

In an Utopian world, we’d be able to offer all part-time teachers tenure-tracks after a couple years of service (or even better, employ all full-time staff), the Student’s Union would be an efficient body, and education would be free. None of these are likely to happen anytime soon, regardless of the student uproar.

That being said, I still think the majority of the members of the BOD had made a poor decision in “trying to stay neutral.” Just reinforcing the facts that this may be the more useless BOD in the history of this school - and that’s saying a lot.

I am a firm believer that most people in this country do about 20-25% too much work. Because we are over-worked, we have less time to volunteer, schmooze and relax.
Following this thesis, I think that a lot of our problems would be solved by reducing the amount of course work per student from five courses per term to four. I’m not really sure how this would work, but it would mean students would pay slightly less, have to do slighty less schoolwork, classes could be smaller, as the elimination of courses would free up professors to teach extra sections of remainding existing classes. Anyhow, I’m sure my logic is slightly flawed, but I stand behind it. Four classes per term and a thirty-two hour work week for all.

I vote Dave for king of the world!

Ok, so all of you know where I stand with respect to labour relations issues, but I’ll try to refrain from singing ‘Solidarity Forever’ while typing this reply. Just imagine I’m humming it in the background while you read this? That should provide the proper effect.

First of all — While Borrelli makes a good point about the pitfalls of attributing scheming intention to largely fumbling-in-the-dark amateur student politicians (past and present), I think John has a good point about WLUSU tending to use ‘neutrality’ as cover for supporting the administration against unions on campus. Sure, most directors don’t have a sophisticated agenda but others in the Union spend a great deal of time interacting with WLU Admin, hearing their concerns, and positioning themselves vis-à-vis Rosehart and others so as to benefit (as WLUSU and as individuals who have personal relationships with stakeholders) later on.

Think back to the WLUSA strike, with WLUSU professing neutrality while soliciting scabs for the University. This is precisely the zero-sum approach John identifies — WLUSU’s political / managerial elite (this is poli sci language, not conspiracy theorist language) evidently felt that the Staff association’s gain would be Students’ loss.

Fraser - Let’s take your financial argument to its logical conclusion. Assuming your $1,100,000 price tag for a $1000-per-half-course raise to Part-Time faculty is correct, let’s examine the potential financial effect for students. WLU’s recent numbers show 10,322 full-time undergraduate students, which would mean the raise would burden each of us with a $106.57 increase in costs — that’s $53.28 per term or $10.67 per half-credit course assuming a full course load. Now, this assumes as lot… most of all the assumption that the count of part-time faculty reflects the number of courses taught as opposed to the number of individuals teaching. Also, this number excludes part-times students, since their course-loads are less predictable, so the per-student, per-term amount may actually be lower.

In my experience, having had at least six half-credit courses taught by part-time Arts faculty, these people are *not* taking part-time teaching jobs to supplement income from ‘day jobs.’ Only one of my part-timers (a labour lawyer with a MA from Laurier who taught Constitutional Law) did this – the rest were either doctoral candidates using part-time teaching to subsist while writing their theses or post-doctoral students cobbling together a living with part-time assignments, often at several universities, as they attempt to pry actual, full-time positions from the cold, near-dead hands of aging full-time faculty.

Now, this lends some credence to Fraser’s point about the addition of new full-time positions as preferable (I agree). Over the past few decades universities have cut costs by shifting teaching responsibilities was from higher-paid full-time faculty to lesser-paid part-timers. It would certainly be better for the part-timers in the long run if the universities added new full-time jobs instead of only incrementally improving conditions for part-timers. Unfortunately, this is not going to happen. If the $1,100,000 figure for improving part-time pay is too much for the university to swallow (as you seem to think) then how likely are they to decide to spend far more by adding full-time jobs instead?

Also, I think it is incorrect to presume that full-time faculty are preferable to part-time faculty on the simple basis of the former being “on campus” more often. Many full-time faculty have limited office hours (two or so per week), and in my experience part-time faculty have equivalent availability thought often their office hours fall immediately before and after classes (as they often travel substantial distances each week to teach here, often from Toronto, Hamilton, or further afield). Part-time faculty are often more “fresh” from their own educations and can bring new and interesting insights to the table, they’re less cynical in their relations with students. I could go on, but this post is already far too long.

IN CONCLUSION: The little buttons that say “Part-Timers Give Full Value” are actually misleading, because with respect to classroom teaching, Part-Timers give *more* value-for-money than the Full-Time faculty. Indeed, that’s why the school relies so heavily on them. It is entirely possible for the school to improve their pay and working conditions while still getting a ‘better deal’ than a hypothetical, unrealistic shift back to full-time faculty.

Smith, amazingly, I agree completely with you regarding pretty-much everything you stated. And you hum so beautifully.

So why the fuck don’t your student leaders see that part-timers are worth defending, and lend ‘em a hand? Looks to me like the classic WLUSU problem: A bunch of posturing, without any balls to follow through. As I’m witnessing here at Mac with the attempted firing of one of their VPs, student politicians like talking big talk, but never have the conviction in their beliefs to really do their jobs. Student leaders want to have the best of both worlds: To pretend to stand for something, but to maintain really comfortable relations with administration. Can’t really blame ‘em I guess (hell, that pretty well sums up my few months with WLUSU: Trying to suck two dicks at one time), but something always gets sacrificed along the way.

On the other hand, what are regular students doing about it? Nothing, so they get the government they deserve. While it’s easy for me to criticize from afar, I just don’t see the point of going to meetings, and writing letters to the shitty Cord. You guys should start giving an equally less shit and get involved in some ends-divorced guerilla politics.

Obviously your student leaders don’t give a shit about anything except pleasing admin while pretending to stroke-off students, so students should do their best to show leaders how little they give a shit about them. But pointlessly. Go to meetings and make people cry (I know more than a few directors who’ll start tearing up at the drop of a hat). Treat people with the same amount of respect they treat you!

Better yet, this year run a bunch of candidates that are honest about being a bunch of neutral-speaking suck-ups. The anti-anti-campaign. Just like the Yes Men. Make a mockery not only of the student governmental political process, but of the same idiot students that go to the school.

On a similar note, I’m going to write an article advocating paternalism in every social sphere.

PS: I love you Sherry.