UC labor strife
Several of you asked for an update/summary of the labor turmoil we're having. Here's my take:
Due to the state budget crunch, UC cut the pay of many of its employees without real negotiation or discussion. I understand why UC did it, and I understand why the workers are sore. The faculty voted to take their furlough days on instructional days, to make sure the students felt the pain. The president and chancellors overruled them, and decided to do the "furloughs" on non-instructional days.
As a result, the technician's union is going on strike Sept 24. And some of the faculty and grad students are walking out in sympathy.
The unions want to simultaneously roll back tuition hikes, and also pay cuts. Their story is that there are all these special emergency funds that the school could use, but chooses not to. I'm skeptical. They suggest suspending all construction, borrowing against the endowment, and raiding the UC medical campuses for funds.
I don't think any of those are really workable; all of them are likely to hurt a lot more in the long run. Most university construction is funded by private donations that can't be re-targeted; moreover, suspending and then resuming construction is enormously costly. Borrowing against the endowment strikes me as extraordinarily reckless; we'd be ruined if the market doesn't perform to expectations. And the med schools are expensive to run, and I doubt we could maintain quality there if we're raiding them for funds.
The unions are also bitter about administration pay. President Yudof makes around $850,000 a year. I don't think that's so monstrous. My impression is that high-power university presidents, chancellors and deans more than repay their salaries in fundraising power. I've met President Yudof and Chancellor Birgeneau; they struck me as highly charismatic, very good speakers, and extremely committed to the University. I think they're probably worth what we pay them. I suspect the same goes for their underlings, the various professional school deans and medical school administrators.
As near as I can tell, the game the faculty want to play is "make the students miserable in hopes that the state coughs up more money." I don't think this will work. I think it's the sort of gamble that only a university faculty would try -- it's a long shot, with the prospect of serious damage to the university if it fails, but the faculty would be able to move to other schools if UC goes to pieces.
I think the administration is being much more responsible. They're trying to keep as much of the university running as they can, while raising tuition as fast as possible to get back to the funding level they want. Chancellor Birgeneau has been remarkably frank about this.
In sum: I understand why the unions and some of the faculty are unhappy. Jon, our lab sysadmin, tells me that the furloughs have been badly planned, and that the University hasn't really told people whether they're included in the furloughs, or how steep their pay cuts will be. But I don't think the university's budget decisions were particularly unreasonable, overall. And I don't see that a staff or faculty strike has any real prospects of improving things.
The CS faculty haven't currently said anything about it, which I take to be a sign that they're not interested and not in support. And I cheerfully defer to them on that.
Due to the state budget crunch, UC cut the pay of many of its employees without real negotiation or discussion. I understand why UC did it, and I understand why the workers are sore. The faculty voted to take their furlough days on instructional days, to make sure the students felt the pain. The president and chancellors overruled them, and decided to do the "furloughs" on non-instructional days.
As a result, the technician's union is going on strike Sept 24. And some of the faculty and grad students are walking out in sympathy.
The unions want to simultaneously roll back tuition hikes, and also pay cuts. Their story is that there are all these special emergency funds that the school could use, but chooses not to. I'm skeptical. They suggest suspending all construction, borrowing against the endowment, and raiding the UC medical campuses for funds.
I don't think any of those are really workable; all of them are likely to hurt a lot more in the long run. Most university construction is funded by private donations that can't be re-targeted; moreover, suspending and then resuming construction is enormously costly. Borrowing against the endowment strikes me as extraordinarily reckless; we'd be ruined if the market doesn't perform to expectations. And the med schools are expensive to run, and I doubt we could maintain quality there if we're raiding them for funds.
The unions are also bitter about administration pay. President Yudof makes around $850,000 a year. I don't think that's so monstrous. My impression is that high-power university presidents, chancellors and deans more than repay their salaries in fundraising power. I've met President Yudof and Chancellor Birgeneau; they struck me as highly charismatic, very good speakers, and extremely committed to the University. I think they're probably worth what we pay them. I suspect the same goes for their underlings, the various professional school deans and medical school administrators.
As near as I can tell, the game the faculty want to play is "make the students miserable in hopes that the state coughs up more money." I don't think this will work. I think it's the sort of gamble that only a university faculty would try -- it's a long shot, with the prospect of serious damage to the university if it fails, but the faculty would be able to move to other schools if UC goes to pieces.
I think the administration is being much more responsible. They're trying to keep as much of the university running as they can, while raising tuition as fast as possible to get back to the funding level they want. Chancellor Birgeneau has been remarkably frank about this.
In sum: I understand why the unions and some of the faculty are unhappy. Jon, our lab sysadmin, tells me that the furloughs have been badly planned, and that the University hasn't really told people whether they're included in the furloughs, or how steep their pay cuts will be. But I don't think the university's budget decisions were particularly unreasonable, overall. And I don't see that a staff or faculty strike has any real prospects of improving things.
The CS faculty haven't currently said anything about it, which I take to be a sign that they're not interested and not in support. And I cheerfully defer to them on that.