So let's look at the systemic problems: Accreditation organizations that have greater control and require greater documentation at various levels (field of study, undergrad, grad, and research). Resources were forced to be moved to administration so less money is available for curriculum development, instruction, and advising. As a result the instructional budget has been cut and faculty are expected to either take on larger classes, bring in funds, or take on a greater work load. As tenured faculty retired and there was a growing population of college students, contingent faculty were hired (and let go) to maintain the same level of instructional budgets. So neither administrators or faculty are to blame.
We are going into a period in which there is a shrinking population under age 18 which means less demand for professors at the same time that more people went back to school for phd's because of the recession (the same shrinkage in pop. and recession happened in the late 1970/80's).
The corporate model assumes that people are nothing more than "human capital" which can be moved around to meet demand. But many adjuncts are tied to their region because of family commitments. It is not so easy just to pick up and move to where the job is. To do so, especially for adjuncts in their 40's and 50's, means uprooting family unless you are lucky enough to live in an area with multiple colleges. Many adjuncts moved from the college they received their phd, to TA, to adjunct and now must wait until they have a family situation in which they can move to where the jobs are. This is especially difficult for the phd student who was not the main bread winner. Our university has a policy where they will not hire from the graduating phd's because they want to ensure a diversity of ideas. There are many schools with that policy.
My only concern with basing it on the system is, like corporations, there are those who are developing policy without being responsible for the decisions. This means it is very difficult to change because "no-one is leading".
What is really important is to look at WHO really has the power in Higher Ed Policy. Look at who is in charge and works for the Accreditation Associations, the college board of Trustees, and those who influence educational policy at the state and federal levels (especially those making educational finance decisions). What agendas do they have? Just as has happened in the private governmental sectors, there can be no change until we understand who is influencing the current policies. Then adjuncts, tenured, contingent instructors and administrators need to stop come to some common vision and not allow policy makers to pit one group against another.