Washtenaw Community College board to vote in November on plan to privatize some part-time faculty, staff
Washtenaw Community College trustees will vote in November on a plan that would make nearly 400 part-time faculty and staff members employees of a private company instead of the college.
The plan is being touted as a pilot project as the college looks at moving its entire part-time faculty from employment by WCC to private contractor employment, a move WCC President Larry Whitworth says would save about $1 million a year for the college.
The plan to be presented to the board in November would call for part-time faculty who teach in the college’s lifelong learning program and some low-level staff members to be made employees of the private company, EDUStaff. The faculty is hired on a per-semester basis, with no promises of a job the next semester.
Larry Whitworth
Not having the employees on payroll would mean the college would not have to pay 19.6 percent of an employee’s salary into the Michigan Public School Employees Retirement System. The employees themselves would not have to pay the six percent of their salary they currently pay into the system.
It’s a good deal for the college and for the employees, Whitworth said, because those employees never have a chance to become vested and get the money the college pays. The employees can apply to get the six percent back, without interest, from MPSERs when they leave the college’s employment, Whitworth said.
“It doesn’t help them or the college,” now, Whitworth told the board at a meeting Tuesday afternoon.
Whitworth said there may be some employees in this classification that are close to vesting, based on previous jobs or long service at the college. In that case, they could stay with the current plan and remain college employees.
To help employees who are switched to the private contractor, the college will add three percent of the 19.6 percent it’s saving to each employee's salary. Those working for the private company will be allowed to buy into a health plan as well. No health plan is currently available to those employees.
Under the plan outlined to the board, the changeover would take place on Jan 1, 2011. Employee meetings would be held in the next several months to explain all the changes.
David Jesse covers higher education for AnnArbor.com. He can be reached at davidjesse@annarbor.com or at 734-623-2534.
Comments
kathryn
Tue, Nov 2, 2010 : 7:02 a.m.
Dear Ghost.. This all sounds perfect wonderful...for those currently employed. Will the choice still be there for new hires or will they automatically be put into the private company? What will happen with future retirees? Are they not allowed to work for private companies, and thus would be shut out of joining WCC staff?. What assurance will private employees have that their wages will remain a better deal than what they would have gotten working for WCC directly? Crystal ball assurances? And are you sure the state won't catch on? Setting up shell companies specifically for the purpose of avoiding "taxes" sounds just a little...well...scummy to me.
Votekeeper
Fri, Oct 15, 2010 : 3:52 p.m.
Why is the WCC Board not exploring less drastic solutions to their budget problems? Why cut off your arm because you have a blister on a finger? If a part-time instructor who is not vested cannot get back all the money paid in for her/his retirement (a suspicious provision--the employer contribution should be paid out also)then why is WCC staying with this bad retirement program? There are plenty of other choices. Please, Ann Arbor.com, interview the candidates for WCC Board and ask if they have better solutions to propose? Voters would like to know if these candidates are leaders, or puppets of the administration.
Cash
Wed, Oct 13, 2010 : 3:42 p.m.
People who are SO worried about someone who feeds from the "public trough" should realize that Whitworth is obviously vested in the MPSERS pension and will be tenured to teach with full benefits. In fact, if he teaches at a lot of public universities, he will be in a.....you guessed it Republicans.....a union! Thus he points his finger at the lowest paid and says he is worried about the cost of pensions!!!!!! That way you won't watch him leave and make out like a bandit.
Cash
Wed, Oct 13, 2010 : 3:37 p.m.
Curtis, Your post made my day. Thank you.
shari k
Wed, Oct 13, 2010 : 3:29 p.m.
stunhsif, Actually, I have been there for 33 years...I will be one of the ones who gets vested.
Curtis
Wed, Oct 13, 2010 : 3:21 p.m.
..."part time" is the way most entities go when they don't want to pay unemployment compensation to laid off employees. (we'll only let 'em work 39 1/2 hours...ala "Walmart", whose business model is the laughingstock of most European countries)Sam Walton's Frankenstein monster has put thousands of small businesspeople OUT OF BUSINESS! PRIVATIZE,SO WE CAN CIRCUMVENT THE LAW! har har har! It's always the way...a statute is designed to assist the breadwinner...then the elite set to work immediately to figure out a way to avoid it!...duh..it's d' amoronikan (George Bush' stupid drawl)...way! The workers of this country have absolutely no leadership, and they need it before things begin to boil! Why don't you try to "privatize" the Teacher's union. The "privatizers" of this country need to have it done to them! Let's Privatize the privatizer's...no benefits, no stable working environment, free-for-all wage agreements that stay the same, year after year without any negotiation! Favouritism on the job! I suggest the privatizers hit the road to Texas...the state with the best record for "new growth", the highest membership of any state in the GOP...ad nauseum!
Cash
Wed, Oct 13, 2010 : 3:10 p.m.
liekkio, We don't know which EDUstaff they are talking to....there seem to be three of them. Related or not who knows?
liekkio
Wed, Oct 13, 2010 : 2:48 p.m.
@ Cash You wrote: "I'd love to see some investigating into the "EDUStaff" company and who is behind it...Their website never gives a name but writes about a "founder" who came from higher ed". If we assume that the EDUStaff in question is local, then their website does provide names: http://www.edustaffonline.com/about.aspx http://www.edustaffonline.com/images/cards/Mark.png http://www.edustaffonline.com/images/cards/Casey.png Some details about Mark Maloney: http://www.linkedin.com/pub/mark-maloney/15/b03/72a More names here: http://www.edustaffonline.com/contact.aspx
jondhall
Wed, Oct 13, 2010 : 12:21 p.m.
Does Free speech really exist? Or are we censored for our views?
braggslaw
Wed, Oct 13, 2010 : 11:53 a.m.
If people don't like what they are paid for doing a job, they have the option of not doing that job.
Cash
Wed, Oct 13, 2010 : 11:24 a.m.
Interestingly, Whitworth wants to go back to teaching as soon as he retires. Of course that will hike his MPSERS pension significantly. But he isn't concerned about that. Just the part timers.
Cash
Wed, Oct 13, 2010 : 11:15 a.m.
David Jesse, I'd love to see some investigating into the "EDUStaff" company and who is behind it. Their website never gives a name but writes about a "founder" who came from higher ed. Seems odd to me that no names are mentioned on their website. And at the same time Whitworth is retiring. Some investigation would be helpful to clear up any concerns.
katie
Wed, Oct 13, 2010 : 10:45 a.m.
There are those part-timers who work for a certain number of years and are then covered by the union contract as adjuncts. There are advantages and protections in this contract. If they work for a private company, they will no longer be able to do this. Those union members will then dwindle and die away. This may or may not be part of the motivation for this move, but the effect is the same. Another group of instructors will also be lost under this plan. This is the large group that have retired and come back to teach part time, often for very reduced wages compared to what they were receiving. Why? Because they love what they do and are good at it. The retirement system prohibits those who retired after a certain date from returning if they return under contract to another company. Again, this is a group that will dwindle as new people retire and are not allowed to teach in any public institution if they do so by contracting through a separate company. Part-timers can be vested at least in some cases. I know one part- timer who is vested. Of course, it takes longer and certainly many who work at other jobs and teach fewer courses/years will not be vested. Really, I agree with the previous poster and to remember this on voting day. The current board provides little oversight. We do need some independent thinkers on the board, not those who were cultivated by Whitworth. Privatizing education is always a mistake. As a member of the public, I want the controls build into the public being able to vote on board members when they are dissatisfied. This goes for all levels of education. Even if the public does not choose to become involved, the right to do so needs to be retained, not parceled off to private companies. I suppose that then some of the money I pay in my taxes will go toward that private company making a profit instead of the people teaching the students. You cannot deny this. It is a bad deal all the way around.
YpsiLivin
Wed, Oct 13, 2010 : 10:15 a.m.
I think there are a lot of areas in which the College can save money; I would suggest starting with cutting Whitworth's pet programs, which absorb a lot of financial resources without returning any tangible benefits (as in increased enrollments) to the college. (The custom car and construction programs come immediately to mind. Auditing those programs probably wouldn't be a bad idea, either.) Whitworth has sacrificed working degree programs for "certificate" programs, doing a major disservice to the students and the community in the process. He has packed the board of trustees with his friends, meaning that there is currently no credible oversight of the administration. (That's why we end up paying for $10,000 trustee weekend junkets for a group of people who can't understand for the lives of them why everyone is upset.) And by the way, how many VPs of Finance has the College churned through since Whitworth arrived? (That's another telling sign that something's rotten over on Huron River Drive.) It will take years to rebuild the college after he leaves. Until that time, every proposal he makes should be viewed with extreme suspicion. You know, there was a reason he was fired from Tidewater Community College. Time to clean house.
William Campbell
Wed, Oct 13, 2010 : 9:56 a.m.
As a candidate for WCC trustee and part-time instructor I have been following this issue. I am definitely in favor of cutting costs and reducing waste. My concern is that this proposal will result in further distancing the part-time faculty from the process of improving academic quality. If the proposal results in improving the value of what we are providing students, than I support it. -William Campbell Trustee for academic quality
Cash
Wed, Oct 13, 2010 : 9:50 a.m.
stunshif, Because as the article explains, MPSERS requires the employer to pay in for all employees on the payroll....and the employee pays in as well. A part timer is never vested (never can draw a pension)and would only get the money back that they paid into the plan when terminated. They have no right to a pension. The administrators do get the full vested benefit however. Do they pay in at all? What exactly are the benefits for the administrators?
tpmcfadden
Wed, Oct 13, 2010 : 9:08 a.m.
It's pretty clear that quality of education isn't the administration's priority. I teach at WCC because I love it; my 20+ years of business experience, I believe, benefit my students immensely. I am confident that my experience makes me at least the equal of any full-time faculty member in my department. My students certainly tell me I'm good for them. (Not that the full-time faculty give the part-timers respect or input on decision-making.) This is another typical "top down" move by President Whitworth and the board. Let's hope that our new president has a management style more suited to the 21st century than the 19th.
stunhsif
Wed, Oct 13, 2010 : 8:51 a.m.
Shari K wrote: "stunhsif, Wow. The part time instructors affected by this change have no 'cadillac' plans, in fact, no contract, job security, benefit package whatsoever." So answer this question. If you are not getting any benefit package "whatsoever" why does the university have to pay 19.6% of your salary into the MPSERS and why are you not upset with that? As a taxpayer, I don't feel I should have to support these underfunded and "Cadillac" plans. And the bottom line is you are getting screwed having to support current and future retirees with your money. The college is offering you a pay raise of 3%, take it.
Long Time No See
Wed, Oct 13, 2010 : 8:44 a.m.
So, the one commenter with personal experience that is relevant to this topic supports this decision, while everyone else has uninformed negative opinions. All of you who are bashing this, you really think it's a good idea for people to pay into a system that doesn't benefit them? You think they should not be offered a higher salary that costs WCC (and us, as taxpayers) less money? I don't get it.
Morris
Wed, Oct 13, 2010 : 8:28 a.m.
Turning over any part of public education to a for profit company is a TERRIBLE idea. It also smacks of union-busting. It goes against everything that I have come to associate with progressive Washtenaw County,its inhabitants, and its leaders. As a person who spent nearly forty years in community college education, I find it difficult to believe or accept that WCCC is contemplating taking such a regressive action. What rock was this dragged out from under?
shari k
Wed, Oct 13, 2010 : 8:19 a.m.
stunhsif, Wow. The part time instructors affected by this change have no 'cadillac' plans, in fact, no contract, job security, benefit package whatsoever. At any point in the semester our jobs can be terminated immediately if a full time faculty member needs to assume our hours to fulfill their load requirement. We are limited to 8 teaching hours a week. But please, if you feel that there are those who would love to join our cake jobs, come aboard. Or get informed. Or something.
Ed Kimball
Wed, Oct 13, 2010 : 7:58 a.m.
As a former part-time instructor at WCC myself, I think this change would be in my best interest. I would get a 3% raise and avoid paying 6% into a retirement program that will never benefit me. Although Steve Hendel's concern about raising the 19% contribution because fewer unvested contributions will support vested retirees is possible, I think that the affect will be unlikely to matter in practice. As for Bornhere's comment about a part-time union contract, I was never asked to join a union or made aware of any such contract. In the meantime, WCC appears in fact to be trying to SAVE taxpayer dollars by eliminating the 19% contribution (or at least 16% of it). While I'd like to know more about exactly how this will work, on the surface it looks like a reasonable plan.
stunhsif
Wed, Oct 13, 2010 : 7:54 a.m.
Quit wasting time and get'er done. And after that is done let's change state law and do this with all public education in Michigan. Time for the "Cadillac" benefits and pension's to go away. The taxpayers and this state cannot afford it. There are plenty of qualified folks who will gladly get into educating our kids if the current ones cannot handle change.
Cash
Wed, Oct 13, 2010 : 6:44 a.m.
If higher ed had as much incentive to guard our tax dollars and student tuition money as they do guarding their own silos, the financial problems wouldn't exist. Higher ed exists in silos...each unit looking out for themselves. Administrators ever suggest cutting their pay? their benefits? their travel expenses? their expense accounts? Nope. Let's talk about cutting the folks on the bottom....part timers. Save one million dollars? Cut 5 or 6 administrators and you can do it without any impact on the quality of education.
YpsiLivin
Wed, Oct 13, 2010 : 6:41 a.m.
... er... November 2 (sorry!)
YpsiLivin
Wed, Oct 13, 2010 : 6:34 a.m.
I would just like to remind the voting public that two WCC board members (Pam Horizny and Stephen Gill) are on the ballot this year, seeking re-election to their board positions. If you do not like the direction that the WCC board is taking (or even if you just object to paying nearly $10,000 for one dinner for this crew), please take the opportunity on November 4 to remedy this.
Steve Hendel
Wed, Oct 13, 2010 : 6:26 a.m.
One big problem for the WCC administration could be: if the retirement plan currently uses the @19 % contributed by the employer for people who will probably never become vested to essentially subsidize the retirements of those who are or will become vested, then they (the WCC administration) may find that they have to increase that @19% on existing staff to some larger %. POOF go the savings.
Chip Reed
Wed, Oct 13, 2010 : 6:12 a.m.
It's one thing for a newspaper to go belly-up and take drastic steps to keep going in some form, but, gosh, I thought this was a public institution. Hasn't Larry W. done enough damage already? Why don't we just give it to EMU and save all the money we pay for "administration". Disclosure: I've taught part-time at WCC since 1978.
Cash
Wed, Oct 13, 2010 : 5:58 a.m.
How about contracting out the administration? Not only could you save benefit and salary money but you wouldn't have to pay for their outlandish dinner bills.
Dr. I. Emsayin
Wed, Oct 13, 2010 : 5:58 a.m.
Some of WCC's best staff members are public school teachers who teach at WCC part time. The salary from WCC is part of their state retirement salary, so it is an investment for them. Losing those teachers, who have learned to teach through their certification program and through years as teachers, will diminish the quality of WCC's education. It certainly should be made a choice for the teaching staff, rather than required to go to the privatized company. I know some of the favorite WCC faculty come from local school districts.
Bornhere
Wed, Oct 13, 2010 : 5:36 a.m.
I know an instructor who has just became vested. There goes one argument. There is a part time union contract that may address this issue. I bet the new company has offices in the HR department of WCC and will be run by the HR department. Smells a little strange to me.