Share:
  • Twitter
  • MySpace
  • Facebook
  • del.icio.us
  • digg
  • Fark
  • Furl
  • NewsVine
  • Spurl
  • TailRank
  • YahooMyWeb
  • Stumble It
Jul 07, 2009

Majority of UCLA faculty, staff prefer furlough option

Of the three proposed options for an 8 percent reduction in compensation, UCLA faculty and staff who sent in their comments to the UCLA Academic Senate and Campus Human Resources showed a strong preference for a furlough over salary cuts or a blend of salary cuts and furloughs.

420618412 zUtUY-X3
Photo by Stephanie Diani.
More than 80 percent of the 191 faculty who responded individually and almost all of the Faculty Executive Committees (FEC) in the schools and College of Letters and Science favored furloughs for a number of reasons, said UCLA Academic Senate Chair Michael S. Goldstein. Among the most common of these was that a furlough sends the message that the university cannot continue to do the same amount of work for less money, and that the quantity and quality of work will suffer without appropriate funding.

A furlough would also establish a clear means of ending the salary reduction once the funding situation improves, Goldstein pointed out in a July 6, 2009, letter to Mary Croughan, chair of the UC-wide Academic Council, summarizing the UCLA faculty's position on many issues. Many faculty members also aired their concerns at a Town Hall meeting held last month by the Senate and attended by more than 110 people.

"Many faculty members expressed a strong desire to stand in solidarity with the vast majority of staff at UCLA who have expressed a preference for a furlough over a simple salary reduction," Goldstein said. Faculty also asked that furloughs be structured in a way that would allow faculty and staff to return to full-time status if they can find funding from non-State General Fund sources to cover the difference.

On the staff side, , most of the 2,500-plus staff who sent in responses to Campus Human Resources strongly favored furloughs, although about 10 percent — mostly medical center staff — preferred salary cuts. About 15 percent supported the combination approach.

Both faculty and staff questioned the wisdom of reducing the earnings of those making $46,000 and above by 8 percent, and those earning less by 4 percent. Many staff found the $46,000 cut-off arbitrary and called for a broader sliding scale.

Faculty pointed out that if such cuts were implemented, an employee making $46,000 prior to the cuts would be making less than an employee making $45,900 before the cuts. However, more than 90 percent of the faculty members who e-mailed in responses and many staff favored some kind of graduated system of cuts, given the vulnerability of junior faculty and staff and the high cost of living in Los Angeles. Opinion among the FECs was divided on this issue.

The majority of faculty — as well as many staff members — also preferred to spare faculty and staff whose salaries are drawn from research grants from cuts. Since these individuals do not draw salaries from state funds, Goldstein noted, "cutting them would do nothing to ameliorate the budget shortfall. Extending the burden of salary reductions to them seems pointless."

In fact, such a move could prove costly to the university and the state, many faculty members pointed out. Federal granting agencies may insist that unspent funds in a grant award be returned. "In addition to the loss of awarded grant funds, the University will suffer a loss of indirect cost recovery for funds returned to the government," the Senate chair explained. The state would also suffer reduced income tax revenue when salaries are reduced.

Faculty as well as staff also felt strongly about a number of other concerns:
  • Regardless of what option the regents choose, steps should be taken to protect benefits, including health and retirement benefits.
  • Due to the educational nature of postdoctoral programs, postdocs should be exempt from cuts, irrespective of the source of their funding.
  • Terms of the Mortgage Origination Program Loans should be adjusted for faculty and Senior Manager Group members who were approved for this UC loan program based on a specific salary.
  • The UC Office of the President should give campuses more autonomy in responding to these cuts because the 10 UC campuses face different circumstances and constraints.
On Friday, July 10, UC President Mark G. Yudof is expected to outline a package of proposed fiscal measures, including the salary reduction option he is recommending, that he will present to the Board of Regents at the July 14-16 meeting for approval.
 
"Although we cannot predict what the president's recommendations to the regents will be, we have every reason to believe that the advice from employees throughout the university is receiving careful consideration," said Associate Vice Chancellor Lubbe Levin of Campus Human Resources, who commended faculty and staff for coming up with many creative ideas to make the proposed options more equitable.
 
"While many personal hardships were described, employees also indicated their understanding of the economic circumstances that required sacrifice to maintain the excellence of UCLA," Levin said. "They understood that other choices — such as large-scale layoffs — were even less desirable."

Goldstein warned that UC must find a way to cushion the blows for what may lie ahead — an 8 percent reduction in compensation, a possible increase in the cost of healthcare benefits and rapid escalation in contributions to the retirement system.

If UC cannot ease the impact on faculty and staff, "the quality of the entire University, no less its basic ability to function, is at dire risk," he noted.

To see Goldstein's entire letter, as well as responses from faculty committees, go here.