Wednesday, May 13, 2009
UC Regents Report on Executive Compensation
To UC-AFT Librarians --
Below please find the link to the annual report of the Regent's Committee on Compensation on executive-level pay and benefits. This report was presented at the telephonic meeting of the Regents last week. At that meeting, record-setting salaries were approved for new Chancellors at UCSF and UC Davis, while student fees were increased by 9.3%.
Note as well that the Regents' Committee justifies this extra pay and benefits for UC's highest-paid employees on the ground that this expenditure represents only .54% of UC's overall annual payroll of over 9 billion dollars. Why worry about so small a cost, the report implies?
The report states repeatedly that bonuses and competitive pay are necessary to recruit and retain the best professionals. For example:
"In order to compete in these markets for the highest quality individuals, UC must and should reflect the same market practices, or our top quality health sciences professionals, for example, will merely transfer to a hospital that will pay competitively."
Why does UC so readily use this kind of market analysis for senior executives, coaches, and doctors, but fail to see that it also applies to its librarians?
Finally, note that in the "The UCBudget -- Myths and Facts" document (recently produced by President Yudof's brand new $4 million marketing department), the University states the following:
"Markets are a reality. The University needs to be able to pay market wages to attract and retain quality people. Markets are also different for different employment groups, and the University needs to be competitive in the markets that apply to each employment group. All groups deserve respect and a competitive wage, but the University will need to pay more for certain jobs than it does for others, just as all other employers do."
"Myths and Facts" then proudly points to the example of the new $64 million AFSCME contract as an example of efforts to address market gaps "at every level of the University." As the pamphlet notes, "...salaries for UC service workers are now comparable to -- and in some cases higher than -- similar positions at CSU."
(Oh, the irony...haven't we been saying some stuff about CSU salaries for a while now?)
Please do take the time to examine the Regent's report on executive compensation and all of its details, especially in the attachments. Why are extra bonus payments to UC's already highly-compensated executives and coaches a higher priority than a fair salary fix for UC's librarians?
UC has the money to pay out this $4.85 million in bonus pay to 111 individuals who already are very high earners. UC claims to have the concern for market equity and salary fairness across all ranks. Yet it has nothing to offer its badly undercompensated librarians.
Below please find the link to the annual report of the Regent's Committee on Compensation on executive-level pay and benefits. This report was presented at the telephonic meeting of the Regents last week. At that meeting, record-setting salaries were approved for new Chancellors at UCSF and UC Davis, while student fees were increased by 9.3%.
Note that the $4.85 million in bonus pay detailed in this report on executive compensation is almost exactly the cost of UC-AFT's proposal to the University to bring professional librarians close to salary parity with their counterparts at the CSUs.
Note as well that the Regents' Committee justifies this extra pay and benefits for UC's highest-paid employees on the ground that this expenditure represents only .54% of UC's overall annual payroll of over 9 billion dollars. Why worry about so small a cost, the report implies?
The report states repeatedly that bonuses and competitive pay are necessary to recruit and retain the best professionals. For example:
"In order to compete in these markets for the highest quality individuals, UC must and should reflect the same market practices, or our top quality health sciences professionals, for example, will merely transfer to a hospital that will pay competitively."
Why does UC so readily use this kind of market analysis for senior executives, coaches, and doctors, but fail to see that it also applies to its librarians?
Finally, note that in the "The UCBudget -- Myths and Facts" document (recently produced by President Yudof's brand new $4 million marketing department), the University states the following:
"Markets are a reality. The University needs to be able to pay market wages to attract and retain quality people. Markets are also different for different employment groups, and the University needs to be competitive in the markets that apply to each employment group. All groups deserve respect and a competitive wage, but the University will need to pay more for certain jobs than it does for others, just as all other employers do."
"Myths and Facts" then proudly points to the example of the new $64 million AFSCME contract as an example of efforts to address market gaps "at every level of the University." As the pamphlet notes, "...salaries for UC service workers are now comparable to -- and in some cases higher than -- similar positions at CSU."
(Oh, the irony...haven't we been saying some stuff about CSU salaries for a while now?)
Please do take the time to examine the Regent's report on executive compensation and all of its details, especially in the attachments. Why are extra bonus payments to UC's already highly-compensated executives and coaches a higher priority than a fair salary fix for UC's librarians?
UC has the money to pay out this $4.85 million in bonus pay to 111 individuals who already are very high earners. UC claims to have the concern for market equity and salary fairness across all ranks. Yet it has nothing to offer its badly undercompensated librarians.
I highly recommend that all librarians take a good long look at this report. It's hard to imagine a more clear -- and more troubling -- illustration of UC's priorities.
Karen Sawislak
Executive Director, UC-AFT
# posted by Karen Sawislak : 12:26 PM
Subscribe to Posts [Atom]