Syndicate and Hague

So they did it. The Regents, sans two, voted to destroy the Regents Scholarship. There are not enough expletives in the world to express how I’m feeling right now.

Here’s the thing, though. It’s our own damn fault.

Let me repeat that: it’s our own damn fault.

One of the Regents who voted against the proposal cited phone calls she’d gotten as one reason she would not vote to destroy the scholarship. Public outcry does work and if 2,300 people take classes every year, 4,000 workers should have been at that rally. Do you really think they would have passed it if McNamara plaza had been filled with U employees and the TV reporters who would have followed a crowd like that? I don’t.

Maybe we’ve just gotten so used to getting screwed that we don’t see the point of making an issue of it anymore. Cut pay? Sure. At least I have a job. But what happens when they come for more? How willing are you to have your compensation package sucked dry so that we can keep executive salaries at a “freeze” and not a “cut”?

If you weren’t there and didn’t make phone calls:
You all just took a cut and you didn’t even try to fight it. Those of you who make money and don’t need it let your lowest paid workers take a cut and you didn’t even try to fight it.

Protest works. But it only works when people show up. Sadly, those who proposed anti-employee solutions were able to waltz off with more of our money because we as a whole didn’t bother to try.

And that pisses me off. And depresses me.

So where the hell am I going to find an extra 3 grand a year? Anyone? I guess I’ll start applying for scholarships that could have gone to other students. I was actually not doing that because I felt I didn’t need the money as badly. That’s changed now, though…

For those of you who missed the rally, or want to forward this on, or use the arguments, I’m pasting the text of my speech from this afternoon’s rally below.

I want to start by saying that though the administration often frames dissent like this as us hating the University, they’re wrong. We love the University. I am a graduate of the English department, and when I moved back here from New York I made an effort to get a job at the University of Minnesota. Our faculty and students are wonderful, and it was actually my job here at the University that inspired me to go back to school and work on my PhD.

Everyone has made fantastic arguments about the encouraging the culture of learning at the University and this being a big part of who we are and why we are here, but I’m going to focus on those of us whose degrees or coursework directly pertain to our jobs.

First of all, I will hammer home the fact that this is a pay cut. Not only is it a pay cut, but it is one of the only cuts in our compensation that will almost exclusively affect low- and middle-wage employees.

Whether it’s the first degree or PhD, the people who take these courses are people for whom education will improve their professional lives. Senior-level employees and faculty members, who for the most part make much more than the rest of us, will not feel this cut personally. And I want to thank those faculty and senior employees who support us and know that cutting the Regents scholarship is the wrong thing to do.

Let’s talk about what kind of pay cut this is.

If you are working on your first bachelors degree, taking one four credit course at a time each spring, summer, and fall, you will be paying approximately $390 per year. An employee working towards their first degree makes less money, so based on a salary of $25,000 per year, that is a 1.5% pay cut.

Let’s say you have a Bachelor’s degree and let’s be generous and say you make $37,000 per year. At the 25% rate, taking a spring, summer and fall undergraduate course will cost you about $950 – about a 2.5% pay cut.

Taking a graduate course each semester at $37,000 per year will cost you about $1,900 – about a 5% pay cut.

Who is being asked to sacrifice? Who is taking the pay cut?

I am a technology professional in the civil service/bargaining unit here at the University. I am also a PhD student in Curriculum and Instruction. Part of my focus is on Learning Technologies. My PhD program directly benefits my boss and my department and my school. I am not unique. The University of Minnesota staff in my courses bring inspiration and new knowledge back to our departments so that we create improve the output of the University.

This pay cut effectively renders the education that is part of our compensation package unaffordable. It will lead to decreased inspiration, innovation, and that will affect the strategic positioning of the University and the quality we currently provide.

This pay cut will affect staff recruitment and retention. Once the economy recovers, the University of Minnesota’s ability to recruit talented staff will decrease, as will our ability to retain staff. Other schools offer dependent and spousal tuition support at varying levels, we offer none. Decreasing a part of our compensation that doesn’t stand up to what other schools currently offer is misguided.

This pay cut is not about the myth of 10% annual increase: the Regents Scholarship increases in cost on average 10% a year. So does tuition. The program itself isn’t getting too expensive, tuition is.

Using short-term tax incentives to market a pay cut that affects long-term policy decisions is fraudulent. Destroying the Regents Scholarship and justifying it with temporary tax incentives that only a small part of our population can even use is disingenuous at best.

The Regents Scholarship didn’t become a perk until the administration wanted to decimate it. Prior to that, it was part of the compensation package that HR reminds us of on an annual basis.

This is a pay cut.

We are better employees because of our classes. We have new ideas, fresh ideas, current ideas. We make the University a better place, we make the education better, and we keep morale strong.

When I moved back to Minnesota, I had my eyes on the University. I wanted a job at the U for a few reasons: I’m committed to education and enhancing education, I think the University itself is a great school overall, and I knew (despite my protestations to the contrary) that I was shopping for a PhD and a way to pay for it.

The University of Minnesota, like many other universities, provides free tuition to its staff. It’s a fundamental element of an educational organization - encouraging your workforce to be educated helps your organization and drawing smart, ambitious people into your workplace by offering free tuition also helps your organization.

So when faced with the budget problem, what does the University do? The one solid proposal that Bruininks put forth via email on Monday was to cut the tuition benefit to 75%. Other parts of the proposal were not firm and kind of wishy washy (likely a pay freeze, but they have to talk to the unions; maybe closing the U over holidays, but they’re not sure).

Some have said that we as employees shouldn’t feel so entitled to the free tuition, but when I’ve gotten that glossy, 4-color brochure from HR that tells me how much the University actually pays me because of things like tuition reimbursement and therefore justifies them paying us less than market rate for our jobs, I’m expected to view the tuition-reimbursement as compensation.

Now it’s a “gift”? Sorry. No.

The other part of that letter from Bruininks is there was no end-date on that 75%. Which means that there’s no deadline, which means if it passes the Regents, it will stay.

So you have smart, ambitious staff who are stuck (momentarily) due to the market. But I can’t imagine that people who could make more elsewhere will stay as the non-salary aspects of our compensation are stripped away. It’s a bad long-term move.

Additionally, nowhere in that email did Bruininks talk about pay equity. There are a larger number of faculty and administrators at the University who make between $150k-500k than you realize (and a few who make more). These are people who have benefited greatly from the boom times, and they are the ones who should sacrifice now. Cutting the pay of someone who makes that much money will not impact them in the same way that it impacts someone making $30K. And changing the tuition reimbursement is a pay cut that will disproportionately impact people lower on the economic ladder.

Call me a socialist if you want, but I don’t believe that the budget should be balanced on the backs of the lower and middle classes. It doesn’t need to be and it shouldn’t be.

I get so angry at the University sometimes. I see our follies and our waste and our disparities and I really don’t understand why other people don’t call out when the U is visibly acting contrary to its mission and obligations. People are always getting caught up in fear of being honest about things, and I think that does us a disservice. I did post-secondary option at the U, I got my BA from CLA, I taught as an adjunct here, and I’m both a staff member and a graduate student now. My parents and my brother are U alums too. I’ve worked at and studied at other schools (New York University, Brooklyn College) and there are things that the U does better than either, hands down. However, there are also things we do worse.

What I’m saying is that you don’t have to drink the kool aid to be a fierce advocate for the University. I think real advocates for the U are the people who are willing to challenge administrative decisions and who want the U to improve and serve as a model university.

What Bruininks is proposing right now? Not okay. Maybe it’s time for the Minnesota Daily to report on salary information like they have in the past. It’s public data, you know…it might put these decisions in perspective.