Whether it is moral or immoral, a consequence of the Affordable Care Act is that some people have and will have their hours reduced.

It happened to me.

I am an adjunct instructor at a community college who was hanging in there for full-time. I am not retired, nor did I work another job on the side. I graduated with my masters, worked in the private sector for a few years, and left the private sector to teach, which in doing so I carried a full course load and earned barely enough to live on and afford insurance. It was a sacrifice. Now I am reconsidering my options going forward.

With that noted, I tend to vote libertarian, but I also vote for who I think will do the best job.

On several news programs this question about hours being reduced has come up. I have noticed that Republicans enjoy making the argument that the Affordable Care Act is reducing employee hours while Democrats make the argument there is no proof or little proof to show it is.

What is disturbing to me is that I have heard Democrats, who acknowledge the possibility that employee hours might be being reduced, say on these news programs, “It is only affecting a few people.”

Only a few?

Is this the same Democrat Party that pushed for Civil Rights? Where is the empathy?

Thanks for letting me share.

That would boil my blood, sorry for what you're going through. Do you think the ACA should be struck from the bill? Or should all of Obamacare be reversed?

It seems to me madness to have to link healthcare with employers, or for that matter with intermediary insurance organizations. This just adds an extra layer of complexity, and allows for added expense.

A single payer system, and a federal government-citizen relationship would cut through a lot of this stuff. But I suppose the Republicans would then be raising the dreaded "S" word.

To answer your question, Interbane, I think we need healthcare reform, but the law needs to be seriously reexamined to reflect the concerns that Americans have, one of which is, why are employers not allowed to exempt employees who already have insurance from having their hours reduced?

In regards to my situation. The problem arises from being classified as “part-time.” Adjuncts are paid a contractual salary, semester by semester or year by year depending on the needs of the institution and therefore not employed on a recurring, non-impeded basis. The IRS wants colleges and universities to calculate how many hours a week adjuncts work, which by request alone, implies there is a problem with the term and its application.

Historically, there has been a trend in higher education to move to part-time employment and/or adjunct faculty, and this trend has been gaining momentum since the 1970s. In their defense, schools have grown accustom to lower wages for teachers, and this has set a precedent nation wide. Therefore, I harbor no animosity toward administration for their decision, but see this as both an economic and moral debate.

At present, a majority of faculty teaching at colleges and universities are adjunct.
Source: http://www.labornotes.org/2013/05/adjun ... e-citywide

How are adjuncts paid? This question comes up and is worth noting.

Since adjuncts are paid a salary, this means they are paid by the course taught. For example, a full-time math professor (not an adjunct), eligible for tenure, might earn $3,000.00 for teaching a course, whereas a part-time instructor teaching the same course might earn, $1,500.00. The $1,500.00, the adjunct will earn, will be paid for teaching the equivalent of four months or one semester, depending on how long a semester is at the given institution. The pay schedule will sometimes be broken into two pay periods or two months apart. So an adjunct, working under this model, earning $1,500.00 for teaching a spring semester course would be paid, $750.00 in March and $750.00 in May, but with taxes withheld and fees for benefits, if the adjunct has benefits and many do not, the final take home salary will be less.

Why so little pay? Adjuncts usually have other employment to offset the discrepancy and many who are recruited to teach as adjunct faculty are retired. Of course, one could make an argument that this anticipation of ancillary income allows schools to justify paying the lower contracted salary. This is especially problematic from an ethical standpoint when college professors are expected to have prior teaching experience, and therefore sacrifice to live only on an adjunct wage while the experience is earned. Add the possibility of high student loan repayment to the equation, and you have another moral issue to address.

Too bad we can't have virtual coffee on here. Thanks for letting me share.

Visit The Adjunct Project for more information http://adjunct.chronicle.com/