Many CALSTRS Retirees who were career adjunct instructors in California’s Community College system continue to report that their pension benefits are insufficient to even pay for rent in their area. It is easy to see why this is. Since CALSTRS benefits are based primarily on two factors – service credit and final compensation – and since both factors are difficult for adjunct instructors to catch up on, the benefit of CALSTRS to adjunct instructors is very limited, with many career adjunct instructors reporting that they will never be able to fully retire.
To illustrate the difference in retirement benefits, I want to compare the benefit levels provided to two hypothetical college instructors. One, a middle column adjunct instructor who earns 30 service credits and whose average final compensation is calculated at $44k, and two, a middle column full-time instructor who also earns 30 service credits but whose average final compensation is calculated as $119k. I set the calculator to assume that there is no beneficiary in either case and I ignored any other compensation that they might be receiving at retirement (sick leave, etc.) I also set the calculator to assume that each instructor is retiring on their 65th birthday. The differences between these two individuals is stark. Whereas the full-time instructor receives $7140 per month in retirement benefits ($85,680 per year), the adjunct instructor will receive only $2640 per month in retirement benefits ($31,680), despite both instructors devoting the same number of years to their craft.
Of course, there are those who will say that this is entirely fair. After all, the adjunct instructor may have worked as many years of their life as the full-time instructor did, but they did not earn as much money so they contributed much less over their lifetime. But of course, CALSTRS doesn’t even make an attempt to calculate lifetime contributions; they are only concerned with “final compensation,” not lifelong contributions. If the adjunct instructor could obtain work as a Dean for their final three years and get their final compensation up to $119k average, they would receive as much as their full-time colleague. And, at any rate, the significantly lower final compensation of the adjunct instructor is entirely a function of the exploitation that is inherent in the two-tiered educational system. It behooves us to be aware that, even as we attempt to make the salary more equitable and transition to a One Tier system that our efforts will not compensate retirees who worked their entire life under the exploitative system.
How can this problem be fixed? I would propose that both aspects of the benefit calculation be improved upon for individuals who have part-time status.
- Currently, an individual can earn only one service credit per year. If an adjunct instructor works more than a full-time load in any given year, they will only earn one service credit. But obviously, this does not permit an adjunct instructor to average their load by making up for bad years with good years. Adjunct instructors have less stability to their teaching assignments than full-time instructors do. They should be permitted to catch up for a bad year by earning more than one service credit in a good year.
- Final compensation is based on what is called an “earnable.” An earnable is not based on how much the employee actually earned. It is, instead, based on what the employee would have earned if they had worked a full-time load at their rate of compensation. So, if in their final years of teaching they teach only one class per semester at an average rate of pay of $4,400 per class, they will be credited with $44k as their earnable for that year despite actually earning only $8,800 in that year. This is, of course, better for someone who is working less than a full load. But it amounts to a penalty for those who are teaching more than a full load. After all, if someone is teaching, say, 140% of load at those same colleges, they will still only be credited with $44k as their earnable, despite actually earning ~$62k. So one easy fix to this would be to have the final compensation be calculated as either the earnable or the actual earnings, whichever is higher. And this would also be a way to easily incorporate college service into the CALSTRS retirement benefit. This one change would make a significant difference in the retirement benefit because the sample adjunct instructor that we used earlier sees significant improvement to their retirement benefits ($3,720 per month as opposed to $2640) when their final compensation is calculated at $62k rather than $44k. But I believe we can do even better.
- One way of doing better would be to calculate the earnable as being what the employee would have earned if they had taught a full-time load at the step and column that they would qualify for on the full-time salary schedule. Viz., if they have 20 service credits and an MA+30, they might be credited as being on step 21 on the middle column of the full-time faculty salary schedule for reporting purposes. This represents true parity, and it would equalize the retirement benefits of adjunct instructors vis a vis their part-time colleagues.
Whichever way we decide to fix CALSTRS to make it more equitable for career adjunct instructors, the fix will not work for our retirees if it is only done going forward. To help our retirees, CALSTRS would need to recalculate their retirement benefits. If our adjunct retiree had their retirement benefit recalculated at $7140 per month instead of $2640, that would mean an improvement of $4500 per month going forward, as well as a large amount of money to be given as back pay. If they are already ten years into their retirement, then that would mean they are owed $540k plus interest. Then, the retiree could be given the option of either taking their accumulated pro-rated difference as a lump sum or else amortizing it over a certain number of years to reduce tax liability.
However we choose to fight for this issue, it is important that our retirees do not get lost in the shuffle. It is a very good thing to fight for current instructors, and I am completely in support of the One Tier model. However, it is also important that when we correct injustice that we remedy it for all who were affected by it. And that surely includes our retirees who were working for decades under an exploitative system that we only just now are getting around to correcting.
