About Me
- Name: Nick W.
- Location: Wisconsin, United States
Libertarian observations from within the Ivory Tower by an archivist, librarian and researcher.
Email me at
libertarian_librarian@hotmail.com
Worth a visit or two
- Andrew Sullivan
- The Ornery American
- Iraq the Model
- Dennis the Peasant
- Tim Blair
- James Lileks
- Views from the other side of the aisle
- Views from the XX side of genetics
Archives
- February 2005
- March 2005
- April 2005
- May 2005
- June 2005
- July 2005
- August 2005
- September 2005
- October 2005
- November 2005
- December 2005
- January 2006
- February 2006
- March 2006
- April 2006
- May 2006
- June 2006
- July 2006
- August 2006
- September 2006
- October 2006
- November 2006
- December 2006
- January 2007
- February 2007
- March 2007
- April 2007
- May 2007
- June 2007
- July 2007
- August 2007
- September 2007
- October 2007
- November 2007
- December 2007
- January 2008
- February 2008
- March 2008
- April 2008
- May 2008
- July 2008
- August 2008
A university is just a group of buildings gathered around a library. ~Shelby Foote
Tuesday, February 14, 2006
OTIT: The Regents' Disconnect
Wisconsin's economy isn't doing all that great, and while there are radically different intrepretations of why that is so, the upshot is that there is less state money to go around than there has been previously. Most state agencies, and state-supported agencies, have seen little or no increase in their budgets over the last few budgets, and some have seen significant cuts (actual cuts-- not decreases in the annual increase). So there's that.
Now, of the state's funds, a large percentage (approximately 8.5%, or roughly $1 billion of the state's projected $12 billion in tax and fee revenues in 2006) goes to the UW-System. Because of fiscal constraints-- related to enrollment issues as well as state funding-- all UW schools have had to make cuts in the last four years. My raises in the past three years have been 3%, 2% and 2%-- regardless of the fact that my evaluation was excellent. Everybody's raises were minimal. Such is life.
And I was okay with that. Not thrilled, no, but okay-- times are tough, so we all have to suck it up a little. Would I have preferred a 7% raise? Sure, but I'd also prefer we didn't have to fire anybody (particularly me), and not filling open positions only goes so far.
Thing is, I REALLY would've liked a 22% raise! Wow, who wouldn't? Except that making chancellor salaries "competitive" does not suddenly increase tuition or state funding-- so the lovely raises the chancellors will be getting have to come from cuts somewhere else. Like the job of somebody who isn't a chancellor.
Having "competitive" salaries is great-- if you can afford it. If not, you find other ways to entice good individuals to take the positions. Of course, at this time, none of the chancellor positions are open! Presumably all thirteen of the current chancellors knew what the pay was going to be when they signed on-- so why are we giving them all raises, regardless of performance, at a time when a lot of positions have been eliminated (most empty, thankfully)?
It is absolutely ludicrous, and it comes at a time when the UW-System is already being held in low esteem by the state legislature (and much of the public) for what are seen as profligate and irresponsible spending habits. I'm pretty sure this won't help.
Well, maybe it's just a matter of time. Maybe those 22% raises are coming my way next year.
Yeah, that's it.
Now, of the state's funds, a large percentage (approximately 8.5%, or roughly $1 billion of the state's projected $12 billion in tax and fee revenues in 2006) goes to the UW-System. Because of fiscal constraints-- related to enrollment issues as well as state funding-- all UW schools have had to make cuts in the last four years. My raises in the past three years have been 3%, 2% and 2%-- regardless of the fact that my evaluation was excellent. Everybody's raises were minimal. Such is life.
And I was okay with that. Not thrilled, no, but okay-- times are tough, so we all have to suck it up a little. Would I have preferred a 7% raise? Sure, but I'd also prefer we didn't have to fire anybody (particularly me), and not filling open positions only goes so far.
Thing is, I REALLY would've liked a 22% raise! Wow, who wouldn't? Except that making chancellor salaries "competitive" does not suddenly increase tuition or state funding-- so the lovely raises the chancellors will be getting have to come from cuts somewhere else. Like the job of somebody who isn't a chancellor.
Having "competitive" salaries is great-- if you can afford it. If not, you find other ways to entice good individuals to take the positions. Of course, at this time, none of the chancellor positions are open! Presumably all thirteen of the current chancellors knew what the pay was going to be when they signed on-- so why are we giving them all raises, regardless of performance, at a time when a lot of positions have been eliminated (most empty, thankfully)?
It is absolutely ludicrous, and it comes at a time when the UW-System is already being held in low esteem by the state legislature (and much of the public) for what are seen as profligate and irresponsible spending habits. I'm pretty sure this won't help.
Well, maybe it's just a matter of time. Maybe those 22% raises are coming my way next year.
Yeah, that's it.
Labels: Oh That Ivory Tower, Politics
Comments:
<< Home
Yea, the funny thing is this type of thing has been going on in other large corporations as well. I believe this stems from keeping the shareholder happy. How many outstanding year end reports have you seen from your employer stating the profit margins of 6 percent or better. I don't see a trickle down theory(Reaganomics) at work here.
Post a Comment
<< Home