The Friday before this unusual Sunday bargaining session between PSUFA and PSU saw the public release of a letter to PSU President Percy and the PSU Board of Trustees, from members of both PSUFA and our full time colleagues in PSU-AAUP, asking for economic openness and fairness in our contract negotiations.
The letter, signed by over 600 PSUFA, AAUP, GEU, SEIU and other labor and community members, definitely made an impression. Thank you to all of our members who signed!
PSU started the bargaining session expressing their frustration with what they believed was an end run around the bargaining process, which forced them to schedule a meeting with the president to discuss the situation with bargaining.
However, the letter itself was a response by us and our sister union AAUP to the foot-dragging by the PSU bargaining team and their unwillingness to negotiate options for salary increase and COLAs, even though these bargaining sessions have gone on for almost seven months.
This has been a difficult year for adjuncts: many have lost classes and other work due to the pandemic, and according to a recent survey of our members, 35% of our adjuncts live at or below the poverty line.
Both teams were able to quickly air and settle their concerns regarding the letter and moved on to what would prove to be one of our most productive bargaining sessions.
Members of the PSUFA team spoke to clarify the difficulties that many adjuncts face in terms of low pay and lack of security, and a difference in pay structure from full-time faculty that exacerbates these challenges. Non-tenure-track full-time faculty (NTTF) teach nine classes a year; adjuncts can teach up to five classes a year—we’re more than half-time employees, but we are not even paid what half-time would be for NTTF, and we don’t receive benefits on top of that. That is why our goal is per-credit pay parity with NTTF.
PSU listed their priorities: minimizing impacts to students, sustainability, providing PSUFA an equitable contract, attracting high quality faculty, and responding to dropping enrollment.
PSUFA responded that since we teach one-third of all classes at PSU and often provide much mentoring and advising (all unpaid), our stability is tied to student success.
Then followed a substantive discussion about the differences between the work adjuncts and NTTF do. PSU posited that the NTTF position description includes curriculum development, advising, and a less well-defined “service” to their department and the PSU community. PSUFA responded that while adjuncts are not required by contract to perform these duties, we often provide many of these duties while not being paid for it, compelled by love for teaching and our students, and pressure to perform well in our precarious positions. PSU recognized that adjuncts often provide a lot of these services and should be paid on top of their contract for it; PSUFA stated the reality that most often we are not. There seemed to be a general understanding of this reality by both parties.
The remainder of this frank discussion aimed at specifying the amount of PSUFA’s offer for pay parity with NTTF, and how it fits into the PSU budget. Our ask is for an increase of ~$100 to the current rate, to get to $1,140 per credit as the minimum adjunct salary. This increase package would total around $2 million and would raise the percentage of the total PSU budget spent on adjunct pay from 2.5% to 2.8%. We currently teach one-third of all classes at PSU (the largest teaching cohort), and are paid 2.5% of the university’s budget.
PSU mentioned that any increase in pay would require an increase in tuition or state funding. PSUFA rejected this attempt to pit our demand for fair pay and job security against tuition and student well-being. Given the fact that PSUFA’s total financial request amounts to less money than what PSU considers a reasonable margin of error within their own budgeting process, there is no evidence that our pay is even a minor factor for setting student tuition costs. We are asking PSU to consider their current budgeting model in relation to the stated mission of the University, and to come up with creative options.
The bargaining session ended with both parties talking numbers, economic specifics, and the possibility of a tiered implementation of any decisions. This level of specificity is exactly what has been missing from the bargaining process all year, and even though there is much work to be done, both bargaining teams should be commended for providing us with a glimmer of hope and something to build on.
Our next bargaining session was scheduled for November 20th, from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m., though please check back here at our social media pages in case the schedule has changed.

