160's who don't want to teachgreenspun.com : LUSENET : CCCEA : One Thread
I have to admit that I'm a little bit confused. Do you mean they don't want to teach more in summer? In terms of moving contract length for the two semesters up, yes I know that there are some faculty members opposed, but for the life of me I don't understand why. We are ALREADY doing the extra work for free when we create the curriculum and/or grade papers, so why would somebody not want to be paid? I understand that it is extra days that you have to be present, but I honestly think that extra days with access to school equipment and offices is a benefit, not a hardship.
-- Anonymous, April 19, 2000
Not everyone is teaching transfer courses and/or lecturing. They are therefore not necessarily packing the same amount of work into less time. There are huge differences in our jobs, due to subject area and delivery methods. Some faculty have probably adapted very well to the long summers, and a longer contract would disrupt their routines. We have had individuals who have opted to the shorter contract for many years. Obviously, they like the short contract or they wouldn't have taken the option.
-- Anonymous, April 20, 2000
I have to admit, I get confused. For years, all I've heard is complaints about the RIFs that happened before my time as a negotiator. We are on the verge of actually getting something done about fixing this, and now people are apparently dragging their feet!!! I don't get it. I think this is even better than "correcting" the RIFs, because these are extra days WITHOUT the requisite summer duties.
We have faculty on this campus who are completely individualized as well, and they are having trouble getting their work done in 160 days, so it isn't just lecture people. I agree that it may have to do with campus differences, but I don't accept that it has to do with methodology differences.
-- Anonymous, April 24, 2000