Academic Senate Forum
Furlough/Pay Cut Options and Budget Reduction Impacts
The Davis Division of the Academic Senate has opened a Web forum so that we can have an on-line discussion of the options outlined in President Yudof’s letter. Clearly, whatever choice is made, there will be a profound impact on each of you and as well as the entire campus. In addition, the Senate would like to begin to solicit your views on the impacts that the anticipated budget reductions will have on departments and programs. We invite you to submit your comments for posting. We are requiring a UC Davis (aka: Kerberos) ID and password to ensure comments are received from the Davis campus community.
President Yudof forwarded an update regarding proposed furloughs/salary reductions on June 30, 2009
The systemwide University Committee on Faculty Welfare (UCFW) has drafted a response to the Furlough/salary reduction plans outlined by UC President Yudof. The draft was provided by the Davis Division representative to UCFW, Lisa Tell. Please click here to view the drafted response.
(Postings reflect the views of the writers and are not the views of the Academic Senate, its officers, or agencies. Libelous material will not be posted. Factual documentation of questionable statements may be requested, but comments will not be edited. The Academic Senate Office reserves the right to refuse to post any item that is deemed inappropriate or unrelated to the business of the Academic Senate.)
Please select the comment category you wish to view
Omnia El Shakry (Faculty) on 7/02/2009 at 11:04 AM
Comment: All of the proposed options are fairly similar. Why should faculty bear the burden of invisible pay cuts? Any reduction in our compensation whether as a pay cut or furlough should be visible—that is, it should be taken in the form of teaching days. Further, in order to “ensure equity across the University,” pay cuts should be graduated. The above 48K and below 48K (4-8%) is absurdly inequitable—in other words, we need a progressive pay cut.
Christopher Reynolds (Faculty) on 7/01/2009 at 1:18 PM
Comment: I urge a furlough that would include the first week of Winter and Spring quarters. The advantages are several: longer time for research; students would be off campus anyway, reducing energy costs, which would be particularly significant in January; and, the public will notice. Since there are many universities that offer 28 weeks of instruction, it is also pedagogically defensible.
Engineering Faculty Executive Committee (Faculty) on 7/01/2009 at 10:10 AM
Comment: Our college executive committee is unanimous in opposing salary cuts or furloughs for grant?funded staff. The reasons for this include:
1. The argument regarding equity is not at all compelling. Federal grant funds have been very competitive for several years and many staff have faced layoffs or had to change jobs as a result. Statefunded staff did not share in these shortfalls. To now indicate that everyone should share equally in shortfalls that are unrelated to their source of pay is not reasonable. To quote one of our faculty members "the equity argument doesn't ring true; if one person's house burns down, must those of the neighbors?"
2. It does not help the situation?? instead it worsens the financial situation. If UCD NIH?funded faculty do not spend the furlough funds or shift the 8% savings in salaries to equipment funds (which by grant policy we should have the right to do if it does not change the scope of work), we estimate that the UC will lose about 4.4M in indirect cost return from UCD alone. Further, it weakens our competitiveness for future funding. The final cost of this policy could be enormous.
Patrick Carroll (Faculty) on 6/30/2009 at 1:35 PM
Comment: I strongly urge everyone to read the statement from Graduate Council. I believe the Council is absolutely correct in saying that furloughs SHOULD impact teaching. All faculty furlough days should be on teaching days. The State and the public need to see that these cuts have costs when it comes to our educational mission. It would be disastrous if legislators and the public come to believe that enormous cuts of this sort can be made with little or no impact on our ability to educate their children.
George Roussas (Faculty) on 6/29/2009 at 3:36 PM
Comment: None of the above. Instead, I second Professor Samaniego's (Davis) proposal to the following effect: No salary reduction is made, and we donate the equivalent (8%, say) to the University--being a nonprofit
institution.
In this way, we retain the level of compensation, which is very critical, in particular for those close to retirement, and at the same time, we reduce the taxable income. And what is equally important, the University gets exactly the same amount. The time factor is of importance here, but I surmise, it could be done if the people in charge move fast enough.
"The faculty and staff should be offered the following option, in addition to or in conjunction with the ones posted by the UCOP Office.
The justification is provided below.
1. The UC is a nonprofit public institution, and therefore in may accept tax-deductible donations.
2. It is proposed therefore that faculty and staff be given the option to donate up to 8% (or whatever be the final figure arrived at) to the UC.
3. In this manner, the salary base remains unchanged (for those who elect to use this option).
4. The UC gets exactly the same amount as under any other option.
5. The preservation of the salary base is critical for those faculty and staff close to retirement, who otherwise will have no opportunity to restore the salary base.
6. Part of the donation will be recovered through the reduction of the taxable income.
7. If it is deemed to be nondiscriminatory, this option may be offered only to those faculty and staff close to retirement."
Kent Leach (Faculty) on 6/29/2009 at 1:26 PM
Comment: Extramural support is the lifeblood of the Research 1 University, and I believe salary cuts to soft money-supported investigators will cause unforeseen harm to our ability to successfully compete for such funds. We should not cut soft money-associated salaries, and furloughs should be the preferred mechanism to bridge the budget gap. Clearly, these are difficult times that call for hard solutions. However, it is critical that we make cuts in a thoughtful manner so as to remain competitive in recruiting and retaining outstanding faculty and investigators while continuing to train and educate at a high level.
Kirk Klasing (Faculty) on 6/28/2009 at 7:28 PM
Comment: UC is the engine for new companies, new jobs and progress in California. Give faculty and staff furlough days so that they have more time to start new companies, help/consult for existing companies, and fuel the economic engines of the state. Salary cuts are a bad idea because they decrease employee morale and extinguish UC’s role in catalyzing economic growth.
Kirk Klasing
Professor
UCDavis
deb niemeier (Faculty) on 6/28/2009 at 8:15 AM
Comment: I want to urge the senate to reconsider support for any pay reduction for soft money researchers. They already feel pain regularly in the ways in which they are not made a full citizen of the campus. It's not fair to ask them to take on this burden as well.
Greg Kuperberg (Faculty) on 6/26/2009 at 7:20 PM
Comment: Certainly furloughs are a fairer option than salary cuts. The suggestion that furloughs would be difficult to administer does not seem entirely convincing. The concern that furloughs would affect university operations is valid; but it would be unrealistic and greedy to expect the same level of service in the face of cuts of this size.
Whether the administration chooses cuts or furloughs, I hope that it can clearly explain how it has reduced or eliminated inefficient or inessential services, before turning to blanket furloughs or salary cuts. Such an explanation is no substitute for the money, of course. But it is the only explanation that I can think of that would make salary cuts or furloughs less frustrating.
John F. Gunion (Faculty) on 6/26/2009 at 4:28 PM
Comment:
June 26, 2009
To: Professor Robert Powell, Chair
Academic Senate, Davis Division
From: John F. Gunion, Chair
Graduate Council
Re: EXPEDITED REVIEW: Furlough/Salary Cut Options Systemwide (due 7-1-09)
Dear Bob:
Graduate Council has considered the proposed furlough/pay cut general plan and options and has many concerns. These comments begin with a focus on issues that appear to apply to all options and we then focus on the reasons why we believe Option II (furloughs) is to be preferred.
View entire letter (PDF)
JA Biello (Faculty) on 6/26/2009 at 4:15 PM
Comment: The 4%/8% threshold (at $48000!) is not actually fair to young faculty who have recently purchased a home in Davis. An average single family home in town now (and in recent years) costs 6-7 times our annual salary. This cost has tripled over the last 10 years. So those of us single income earners who were struggling to make ends meet and live in this city are now forced to take an 8% pay cut (plus start paying back into the retirement fund). This is a massive fraction of my after mortgage take-home pay. What about more senior faculty who bought their homes more than 10 years ago? They have, both, higher salaries and smaller mortgages.
Premkumar Devanbu (Faculty) on 6/26/2009 at 4:14 PM
Comment: All the 3 options,
Susan Handy (Faculty) on 6/26/2009 at 3:20 PM
Comment: I am please to hear that the merit system will not be suspended. To cut our salaries and give us nothing to work for would be demoralizing, indeed.
It is ridiculous to cut salaries (whether through pay cuts or furloughs) for soft-money employees. For one thing, this reduces revenues for the university by slowing the pace at which it earns indirect on externally funded projects. For another, soft-money employees face the risk of salary reductions all the time if grants dry up; we hard-money employees do not get salary reductions when they do - why should they get salary reductions now just because we are getting them?
Greg Pasternack (Faculty) on 6/26/2009 at 2:04 PM
Comment: Whatever financial approach is used to make a cut, it is very problematic to apply "social engineering" methods to "correct" for perceived burdens to special-interest constituencies. People of all ages, marital status, housing status, retirement situation, etc. will struggle with cuts. Trying to prioritize special status with the cuts on the basis of these social criteria would be unfair. I can understand having a special exemption for emergency rooms in hospitals and an economic adjustment for income level. However, instead of the "progressive" cut being a discrete shift at one level that punishes those just above the threshold, it should be a linear function that insures that a person does not get cut to a salary below someone at a lower pay level. That would be more equitable.
YC (Faculty) on 6/26/2009 at 1:42 PM
Comment: Option-2 seems better than the others, because it has a defined period and somewhat more reasonal to eliminate paid Holidays.
The reduction should be only for the state-funded salary. There is no reason to reduce salary for the employees on non-state funded salary. On the contrary, reducing non-state-funded salary (from external grants) will decrease the income TAX for California.
Roberta Millstein (Faculty) on 6/26/2009 at 1:27 PM
Comment: Which is more likely to be truly temporary, furloughs or paycuts? Which change is more visible to students, their parents, and the community at large?
Bruno Pypendop (Faculty) on 6/26/2009 at 1:12 PM
Comment: I believe there should be a basic cut on the "on-scale" part of salaries (in the form of furloughs), and a larger cut on the offscale part, potentially proportional to the offscale portion. The University has a salary scale, which represents what people "should" earn according to their rank and step. I believe it is unfair to "penalize" people who, according to the University salary scale, earn just what they are supposed to to the same extent as people who earn significantly more.
Sharon Lawler (Faculty) on 6/26/2009 at 1:05 PM
Comment: Retirement calculations need to be protected from the pay cuts.
Are administrative stipends include in cuts or just base salaries? This is unclear.
I agree with a prior comment that the cuts should be made more gradually progressive.
I favor options with furlough days (especially for staff)because it is only fair that such a large reduction in pay correspond to a reduction in work days. However, paycheck amounts could vary widely depending on the timing of unpaid holidays and furlough days. This could be a hardship for some.
I agree with the many comments pointing out that cutting pay for soft money employees creates an unnecessary burden on staff whose positions are already vulnerable. Applying the policy to soft money staff will not save the University money.
Anonymous (Faculty) on 6/26/2009 at 12:38 PM
Comment: I hope the administration will consider exemptions from cuts based on extreme hardship. I am going through a divorce and my ex-wife lost her job. I am paying 30% of my income in support and the equity in my home has collapsed. As it is I am already considering bankruptcy. With this cut I don't think I can pay my bills and will likely lose my home. There should be a provision where people can apply for an exemption by documenting their case of extreme hardship. When we talk about equity we have to realize that all employees cannot equally absorb these cuts. Some will be able to manage quite well, but others will be devastated. The idea of an across the board cut can seem equitable on the surface, but it can have drastically inequitable outcomes for individuals. Please provide a provision through which individuals can seek an exemption based on extreme hardship.
Lavjay Butani (Faculty) on 6/26/2009 at 12:27 PM
Comment: It is ironic that physicians and faculty will need to be the ones to reduce their pay while continuing their current work load. The faculty/physicians are the ones who support the functioning of the university, provide patient care and bring in income, not the adminsitrators with their exorbitant salaries and their ridiculous perks (travel etc). Its time we got rid of such ostentatious displays of monetary excess, towards the administrators, and preserve paying faculty what they deserve for the work they are doing. Stpo all the unneccsary construction work (new bulidings etc) and save some money from there. Use the Hopsital porfits to offset State budget reductions!
Elizabeth Freeman (Faculty) on 6/26/2009 at 11:55 AM
Comment: I find the news of these upcoming cuts devastating. I am the main breadwinner of my family, with a child and a disabled partner to support. I support my family on a UCD Humanities salary, on-scale but not on par with competitor institutions, and I can barely make it as is. I believe that the state of California cannot continue to support us at @15%, and expect 100% return from us. Additionally, I have worked hard to recruit and retain junior faculty in my department, and do not want to see the brain drain and lowered morale that these events will inevitably produce. I am in favor of the lowest possible pay cut, tiered equitably ($46K is an absurdly low cutoff when beginning assistant professors make more than this), with the majority of it (or all if it) to be taken in furloughed *teaching days.* While I have no wish to punish students, they and their parents are the only "buying power" that might make the state listen.
John Conway (Faculty) on 6/26/2009 at 11:53 AM
Comment: I completely concur with Jim Trimmer and Jerry Powell about not cutting the pay of extramurally funded personnel. Already the threat of this has caused a good deal of anxiety among the members of our research group, particularly postdocs. These researchers have taken job in academia rather than much higher paying jobs in industry, and they have come to the University of California because of its reputation, which will only suffer if we needlessly curtail it, out of some misguided notion of equity. Cutting the pay of these researchers accomplishes nothing but the destruction of our research program.
Also, I think that furloughs are by far the best option: this pain must be felt by all, not just the faculty and staff.
Mark Mascal (Faculty) on 6/26/2009 at 11:40 AM
Comment: Couldn't those who have no problem paying their mortgage shoulder a larger part of this burden? There should be 2%, 4%, 6%, 8%, and 10% brackets at reasonable points for those earning less than 100k, and perhaps even higher rates for those earning >100k. An 8% cut would be murder to an assistant or associate professor with a stay-at-home spouse and a family.
Keith Watenpaugh (Faculty) on 6/26/2009 at 11:36 AM
Comment: Option Three makes the most sense – the (3.4/%1.7% cut) has the least impact upon the calculation of merit increases (unless merits are to be calculated on the basis of pre-cut salaries).
We should insist that the other part of the reduction be taken exclusively in furlough days – and those days should be teaching days during the year. Students, their families and the state at-large should understand the cost of this act; perhaps as students lose classroom and instructional time, as clinics reduce their hours, as extension services evaporate, what is at stake will come into sharper focus.
Imagine what those furlough days might look like – a Wednesday or Thursday – when the campus is quiet, offices are closed, the library’s doors are barred, the Medical Center is dark, labs shut down, classrooms empty, now imagine that 8-13 times in the school year on all ten of the campuses.
Barbara Shacklett (Faculty) on 6/26/2009 at 11:34 AM
Comment: My initial reactions to the three options offered by Dr. Yudof's letter are similar to those expressed by other faculty/staff: (1) The letter explicitly states that all options would negatively impact retirement benefits and/or service credit unless addressed by the Regents. Will there be preventive action by the Regents? If not, what will be the impact of each option on retirement?
(2) It seems pointless, even punitive, to state that all salaries will be reduced, when some faculty/staff are paid exclusively through extramural funds. For those of us fortunate enough to receive "hard money" in the form of state-funded FTEs, pay reduction makes sense since it will save state funds, and I am personally willing to accept my share of the burden. However, for anyone funded exclusively through "soft money" (generally peer-reviewed research grants), cutting those already precarious salaries seems illogical since it will not lead to savings of state funds.
(3) Senior leadership should set an example by accepting cuts (in terms of percentage) equal to or greater than those requested of other faculty and staff.
George Rab (Faculty) on 6/26/2009 at 11:04 AM
Comment: Most income from the 5 UC medical centers comes from clinical activity, unlike general campus and administration, where state and tuition monies are the source of salaries. Cuts, furloughs, and layoffs (personnel equity across all campuses) will simply reduce patient through-put and efficiency, resulting in reduced revenue to match the financial cuts that were supposed to save money. It seems the UC campuses are happy to share in the profit from the medical centers, but willing to kill the golden goose for "equity's" sake.
Marc Pilisuk (N/A) on 6/26/2009 at 10:59 AM
Comment:
I hope I can this posting.
It is imperative that the UC system speak out to the public and support those who do. Many of the cutbacks could be prevented by passage of a gas severance tax in California and by an increase in taxes on tobacco. Or discussions should not merely be around which sacrifices in higher education must be endured but should include policy discussions regarding protection of essential services.
Peace,
Marc
Marc Pilisuk, Ph.D.
Professor Emeritus, The University of California, Davis
Professor, Saybrook Graduate School and Research Center
494 Cragmont Ave.
Berkeley, Ca 94708
Ph/fax 510-526-0876
Mont Hubbard (Faculty) on 6/26/2009 at 9:59 AM
Comment: Although a pay cut is clearly warranted by the extreme financial conditions, for those of us contemplating retirement in the next few years this will have severe implications beyond those that could ever be considered fair. Because the retirement benefit depends directly on the highest pay average for three years, even if the pay cut spans only one year, this will reduce our retirement pay by 2.7% for the rest of our lives. If it were to be extended for one or two more years the inequitable penalty would be even higher (5.4% or 8% of our lifetime benefit). Something should be done to avoid this unjust consequence to a small segment of the population who have given 35 or more years of their lives to the university.
Richard Tucker (Faculty) on 6/26/2009 at 9:55 AM
Comment: I would like the University to consider a more equitable scale for determining the percent reduction for staff than just 4% or 8%. Many staff have salaries just above the 4% cut off. Can't a scale of 2%, 4%, 6% and 8% based on total salary be considered for staff?
Anonymous (Faculty) on 6/26/2009 at 9:53 AM
Comment: There are profound inequalities in saliries in UC. This institution resembles more a greedy corporation with its overpaid CEOs than a public education institution. It is time to work on equitable salary distribution rather than pay cuts and furloughs.
Sean Owens (Faculty) on 6/26/2009 at 9:46 AM
Comment: While I understand the need for budget cuts and overall tightening of the belt during times of fiscal crisis, we must not forget that the university's mission is to educate our next generation and to generate knowledge through our research activities. We can only cut so deep before we begin to compromise our mission. I am all for creating a leaner university that is better able to respond to ever changing fiscal demands, but not at the expense of those who come here seeking knowledge and those who have dedicated their lives to teaching, service and research. So, if I had to choose between a pay cut and a furlough, I would choose the furlough.
However, I would hope that the powers that be understand that education leads to higher paying jobs for graduates which generates more tax dollars, stimulates the economy and leads to less dependency on social services. So, while the state has not yet killed the goose that lays the golden eggs, it has it's hands firmly around the goose's neck.
Joan Ogden (Faculty) on 6/26/2009 at 9:38 AM
Comment: It is difficult to choose among Options 1, 2 and 3 without knowing more details about how they would effect retirment benefits and UCRP employee service credits.
President Yudof's June 17 letter states:
Option 1 (8% pay cut) would impact employee retirement plan benefits unless addressed through Regental action similar to the provisions of the START program.
Option 2 (21 days unpaid leave) would impact employee service credit for UCRP unless addressed though Regental action similar to the provisions of the START program.
Will there be Regental action similar to the START plan in the current crisis? I feel I need more information before endorsing an Option.
James Griesemer (Faculty) on 6/26/2009 at 9:36 AM
Comment: Mark Yudof, President
Larry Vanderhoef, Chancellor, Davis Campus
Linda Katehi, Chancellor-Designate, Davis Campus
Ron Mangun, Dean, Division of Social Sciences, College of Letters and Science, Davis Campus
Robert Powell, Chair, Davis Division of the Academic Senate
Tuesday, June 23, 2009
re: Faculty Pay Cuts
I am writing as a Department Chair with an argument to exempt new hires and retentions from this round of faculty pay cuts as part of necessary budget reductions.
I accept the premise that temporary faculty pay cuts are a necessary part of the solution to the budget crisis. I understand that the issue is complex and cannot be solved by those of us in the trenches without all the budget data and constraints before us. Nevertheless, I am concerned that larger principles are not being considered alongside necessary budget actions.
My primary concern is the often-repeated statement that cuts will be applied to all faculty to “ensure equity across the University” (Furlough FAQ 6-18-09, p. 1).
View entire letter (PDF)
Jim Trimmer (Faculty) on 6/26/2009 at 9:30 AM
Comment: I suggest that UC not furlough those staff whose entire salary and benefits are paid from extramural funds. This will not help the budget situation one bit, as these dollars will simply revert to the extramural accounts, and will actually hurt as indirect costs normally collected by UC on these salary and benefits will be lost. Moreover, our productivity on research projects funded by extramural funds will drop, resulting in UC researchers being less competitive relative to our colleagues at other institutions. Using the "savings" for other purposes, such as hiring new (and presumably untrained) staff, or buying equipment (which is not eligible for indirect cost returns) will in most cases not compensate research projects for the debilitating effects of across-the board loss of effort by trained and experienced staff. While there may be a philosophy that furloughing state-funded employees (such as myself) and not those funded by extramural funds is unfair, staff funded by extramural funds already lack security of employment relative to their colleagues in state-funded positions, as extramural research funds are awarded with relatively short terms. Only recovering salary dollars via furloughs from staff paid from state funds will allow UC to 1) remain competitive and 2) continue to collect indirect costs from extramural funds.
Brian A. Davis MD (Faculty) on 6/26/2009 at 9:25 AM
Comment: A combination of furlough and salary reduction is really the only acceptable option for me. I cannot speak for anyone else but myself. An 8% reduction in pay will devastate my personal capacity to meet family financial obligations and to continue to repay my staggering financial aid debt. A move like this could very easily force me and other faculty who are truly committed to teaching to go into the private sector merely to be compensated fairly for my time and efforts.
I took this job almost 10 years ago at a reduced rate, continue to be slighted in terms of getting fair retirement compensation, and now may be asked to default on my loans - all to be able to teach. This is not acceptable. Some measure of furlough MUST be considered for physicians.
Jerry Powell (Faculty) on 6/26/2009 at 8:59 AM
Comment: In these financially challenging times, it is critical to avoid provoking anxiety which is counterproductive, to avoid generating uncertainty which is debilitating, and to announce with clarity that the University still supports fairness and encourages and rewards creativity and hard work.
Using those principles, it would be nice for the Administration to announce that staff in those laboratories that bring in extramural funds will not be subject to salary freezes or cuts. Money saved from cutting extramurally supported salaries cannot be used to pay University personnel not working on the grants anyway. So, why generate anxiety,uncertainty and disincentivize hard working productive staff.
Along the principles of fairness, most of the faculty I have discussed these issues with agree that it is ludicrous to cut highly compensated administrators salaries 5%, then turn around and announce cutting faculty salaries 8%. The leaders of the University have lost all, repeat all, moral credibility with that move.
As always, I enjoyed your performance at the graduate student graduation ceremony. That ceremony is the culmination of much of why we are at the University, and it was well performed. Thank you.