On the one hand, according to the article,
“Sodexho already announced that it has established an independent third-party grievance system, introduced the UC Davis Principles of Community to employees and boosted wages consistent with UC’s recent pay increases for its lowest-paid workers.”
Furthermore:
In a Sodexho letter dated May 18 and posted online with [Interim Vice Chancellor of Student Affairs Janet] Gong’s, the company’s senior vice president, Bill Lacey, pointed out that the company in 2003 voluntarily elected to follow the Sacramento Living Wage policy, and that the company believes “our compensation is competitive within our industry.”
On the other hand,
“The university estimates the cost of providing improved wages and more affordable benefits to Sodexho workers at $2.1 million annually.”
Janet Gong, the interim head of Student Affairs suggests the following:
“This is a significant recurring cost that cannot readily be absorbed within the existing university budget.”
She added that the burden of paying the extra cost would likely fall on students who rely on Sodexho service in the dining halls and elsewhere on campus. “Being mindful of the additional costs our students would face and consistent with the chancellor’s commitment to address these issues, we are exploring a variety of strategies to improve wages and benefits.”
The university then gives a third set of numbers.
“Gong also gave an estimate of the cost of converting Sodexho workers to the UC Davis payroll: a minimum of $3.2 million a year, including wages and benefits, administrative costs and capital expenses.”
The effect of that increase would be a $600 per year increase in the cost of residence hall fees.
Of course the bottom line for the university is:
Gong noted that the university has a contract with Sodexho through 2010, and “we have chosen to honor this contract and seek ways within it to approach the compensation and employment practices that are at issue.”
And that’s fine, as we found out last week, the university can of course honor their contract while at the same time pay these people better wages and better benefits.
This entire debate makes me extremely uncomfortable–the idea that the university is now pitting students against low-wage employees.
So let us recap what the university is saying. First, they give us the line that Sodexho is going to raise their wages. But at the same time, they tell us that in order to make their pay commensurate with the entry-level university employees and give them benefits that commensurate with entry-level university employees it is going to cost $2.1 million to the university.
These are people who do not make enough money to live in Davis. These are people who then have to take $450 or so out of their earnings if they want health coverage. And the university is admitting that they are balancing their books right on the backs of these workers.
Moreover, now they are trying to pit students against workers, by threatening students with tuition or residence hall increases if these workers are to be fully compensated for the work that they do. So this issue is going to become a wedge between students and the workers–students who are already facing a sizable fee and tuition increase because of budget shortfalls statewide. And the university wants to use this to break the will of the strike. Of course, somehow other universities in the UC system have managed their budgets while paying food service workers university pay and benefits. I wonder how they have managed that?
Now this article in some ways sounds informative, but it leaves out crucial pieces of information.
First, what is the overall university budget? The $3.2 million sounds like a lot of money, but is it? What percentage of the overall budget is it?
Second, it seems to assume that the money would increase in a lump sum, what would happen if you could phase it in over a couple of years while at the same time finding room in the budget to mitigate some of the costs?
Third, how much money goes to upper administration? They want to balance the budget on the backs of those making $8 an hour rather than those making 200K plus per year. Perhaps the students should have a say in that, whether the food service workers should get that $2.1 or $3.2 million or the upper administration. I wonder who would win in that fight?
The bottom line is very simple, when the university wants something they find ways to get money for it. When the university does not want something, they find excuses not to fund it and they try to play political games. The amazing thing is that the university has basically admitted how much they are cheating these entry-level workers out of sizable salary and benefits.
Chancellor Vanderhoef and the university administration are clearly in violation of UC Davis’ Principles of Community, which state that “…each of us has an obligation to the community of which we have chosen to be a part.” By pinning workers against students, that undermines that obligation and sense of community.
—Doug Paul Davis reporting
…much they are cheating these entry-level workers out of sizable salary and benefits.
It’s not cheating when the contract, salary, and benefits are known to all parties involved. I know my contract, I know my salary, I know my benefits. Simply because I want more salary and better benefits does not mean my employer is cheating me.
If you want to argue for better salary and benefits for the Sodhexo employees, don’t accuse those who are fulfilling the obligations of the mutually agreed upon contract of cheating. It undermines your case.
…much they are cheating these entry-level workers out of sizable salary and benefits.
It’s not cheating when the contract, salary, and benefits are known to all parties involved. I know my contract, I know my salary, I know my benefits. Simply because I want more salary and better benefits does not mean my employer is cheating me.
If you want to argue for better salary and benefits for the Sodhexo employees, don’t accuse those who are fulfilling the obligations of the mutually agreed upon contract of cheating. It undermines your case.
…much they are cheating these entry-level workers out of sizable salary and benefits.
It’s not cheating when the contract, salary, and benefits are known to all parties involved. I know my contract, I know my salary, I know my benefits. Simply because I want more salary and better benefits does not mean my employer is cheating me.
If you want to argue for better salary and benefits for the Sodhexo employees, don’t accuse those who are fulfilling the obligations of the mutually agreed upon contract of cheating. It undermines your case.
…much they are cheating these entry-level workers out of sizable salary and benefits.
It’s not cheating when the contract, salary, and benefits are known to all parties involved. I know my contract, I know my salary, I know my benefits. Simply because I want more salary and better benefits does not mean my employer is cheating me.
If you want to argue for better salary and benefits for the Sodhexo employees, don’t accuse those who are fulfilling the obligations of the mutually agreed upon contract of cheating. It undermines your case.
“”Gong also gave an estimate of the cost of converting Sodexho workers to the UC Davis payroll: a minimum of $3.2 million a year, including wages and benefits, administrative costs and capital expenses.”
The effect of that increase would be a $600 per year increase in the cost of residence hall fees.”
That comment is false and just a scare/negotiation tactic. There are about 4,500 people living in residence halls. If you multiply 4,500 people by $600 you get $27 million – that is a lot more than $3.2 million. So the real annual cost increase per student would be $60- $70 per year – not $600. The Administration is being dishonest on this point.
A question – why would there be higher Admin costs and capital costs related to a pay increase to employees?SAH
“”Gong also gave an estimate of the cost of converting Sodexho workers to the UC Davis payroll: a minimum of $3.2 million a year, including wages and benefits, administrative costs and capital expenses.”
The effect of that increase would be a $600 per year increase in the cost of residence hall fees.”
That comment is false and just a scare/negotiation tactic. There are about 4,500 people living in residence halls. If you multiply 4,500 people by $600 you get $27 million – that is a lot more than $3.2 million. So the real annual cost increase per student would be $60- $70 per year – not $600. The Administration is being dishonest on this point.
A question – why would there be higher Admin costs and capital costs related to a pay increase to employees?SAH
“”Gong also gave an estimate of the cost of converting Sodexho workers to the UC Davis payroll: a minimum of $3.2 million a year, including wages and benefits, administrative costs and capital expenses.”
The effect of that increase would be a $600 per year increase in the cost of residence hall fees.”
That comment is false and just a scare/negotiation tactic. There are about 4,500 people living in residence halls. If you multiply 4,500 people by $600 you get $27 million – that is a lot more than $3.2 million. So the real annual cost increase per student would be $60- $70 per year – not $600. The Administration is being dishonest on this point.
A question – why would there be higher Admin costs and capital costs related to a pay increase to employees?SAH
“”Gong also gave an estimate of the cost of converting Sodexho workers to the UC Davis payroll: a minimum of $3.2 million a year, including wages and benefits, administrative costs and capital expenses.”
The effect of that increase would be a $600 per year increase in the cost of residence hall fees.”
That comment is false and just a scare/negotiation tactic. There are about 4,500 people living in residence halls. If you multiply 4,500 people by $600 you get $27 million – that is a lot more than $3.2 million. So the real annual cost increase per student would be $60- $70 per year – not $600. The Administration is being dishonest on this point.
A question – why would there be higher Admin costs and capital costs related to a pay increase to employees?SAH
I think the University’s position makes a lot of sense.
Its fun to march around and wave signs as they did in the big “Sodexho out of Iraq” march last month… But a lot less fun to sit down and actually do anything useful. In this case, identify how you are going to pay for the added cost of taking these workers out of the private sector and moving them into the remarkably high overhead University empoloyee ranks.
I agree with the previous post about the math of the $600 vs. $60 comment. With those numbers, things make more sense- an extra $60 a year is not going to kill the students if that is what they are willing to pay to see the workers become University employees. But let them make the choice and live with the consequences.
I think the University’s position makes a lot of sense.
Its fun to march around and wave signs as they did in the big “Sodexho out of Iraq” march last month… But a lot less fun to sit down and actually do anything useful. In this case, identify how you are going to pay for the added cost of taking these workers out of the private sector and moving them into the remarkably high overhead University empoloyee ranks.
I agree with the previous post about the math of the $600 vs. $60 comment. With those numbers, things make more sense- an extra $60 a year is not going to kill the students if that is what they are willing to pay to see the workers become University employees. But let them make the choice and live with the consequences.
I think the University’s position makes a lot of sense.
Its fun to march around and wave signs as they did in the big “Sodexho out of Iraq” march last month… But a lot less fun to sit down and actually do anything useful. In this case, identify how you are going to pay for the added cost of taking these workers out of the private sector and moving them into the remarkably high overhead University empoloyee ranks.
I agree with the previous post about the math of the $600 vs. $60 comment. With those numbers, things make more sense- an extra $60 a year is not going to kill the students if that is what they are willing to pay to see the workers become University employees. But let them make the choice and live with the consequences.
I think the University’s position makes a lot of sense.
Its fun to march around and wave signs as they did in the big “Sodexho out of Iraq” march last month… But a lot less fun to sit down and actually do anything useful. In this case, identify how you are going to pay for the added cost of taking these workers out of the private sector and moving them into the remarkably high overhead University empoloyee ranks.
I agree with the previous post about the math of the $600 vs. $60 comment. With those numbers, things make more sense- an extra $60 a year is not going to kill the students if that is what they are willing to pay to see the workers become University employees. But let them make the choice and live with the consequences.
I don’t agree Mike, why is this on the students at all?
I don’t agree Mike, why is this on the students at all?
I don’t agree Mike, why is this on the students at all?
I don’t agree Mike, why is this on the students at all?
The students should not be responsible for budget decisions – the Administration is just passing the buck.
And by the way, if UCD wants to get input on new projects (football stadium,Mondavi Center, ARC etc) I think they should ask the parents rather than the students. Ask the people who are making the payments and stop hiding behind the students. I would love to see and vote on a list of all of the University perks. SAH
The students should not be responsible for budget decisions – the Administration is just passing the buck.
And by the way, if UCD wants to get input on new projects (football stadium,Mondavi Center, ARC etc) I think they should ask the parents rather than the students. Ask the people who are making the payments and stop hiding behind the students. I would love to see and vote on a list of all of the University perks. SAH
The students should not be responsible for budget decisions – the Administration is just passing the buck.
And by the way, if UCD wants to get input on new projects (football stadium,Mondavi Center, ARC etc) I think they should ask the parents rather than the students. Ask the people who are making the payments and stop hiding behind the students. I would love to see and vote on a list of all of the University perks. SAH
The students should not be responsible for budget decisions – the Administration is just passing the buck.
And by the way, if UCD wants to get input on new projects (football stadium,Mondavi Center, ARC etc) I think they should ask the parents rather than the students. Ask the people who are making the payments and stop hiding behind the students. I would love to see and vote on a list of all of the University perks. SAH
Hey SAH, i just did the math on my calculator. 4,500 x 600 = 2.7 million NOT 27 million.
Hey SAH, i just did the math on my calculator. 4,500 x 600 = 2.7 million NOT 27 million.
Hey SAH, i just did the math on my calculator. 4,500 x 600 = 2.7 million NOT 27 million.
Hey SAH, i just did the math on my calculator. 4,500 x 600 = 2.7 million NOT 27 million.
“Anonymous” I’m sure you do know your salary, benefits, and contract. I’m most certain it’s a good one. The food service workers have a right to advocate for something better and as members of the community and university we have a right to support them. It’s an embarrassment that we are the only UC with this issue.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, I am going to withhold anymore contributions to UCD until this gets straightened out. It’s a shame!
“Anonymous” I’m sure you do know your salary, benefits, and contract. I’m most certain it’s a good one. The food service workers have a right to advocate for something better and as members of the community and university we have a right to support them. It’s an embarrassment that we are the only UC with this issue.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, I am going to withhold anymore contributions to UCD until this gets straightened out. It’s a shame!
“Anonymous” I’m sure you do know your salary, benefits, and contract. I’m most certain it’s a good one. The food service workers have a right to advocate for something better and as members of the community and university we have a right to support them. It’s an embarrassment that we are the only UC with this issue.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, I am going to withhold anymore contributions to UCD until this gets straightened out. It’s a shame!
“Anonymous” I’m sure you do know your salary, benefits, and contract. I’m most certain it’s a good one. The food service workers have a right to advocate for something better and as members of the community and university we have a right to support them. It’s an embarrassment that we are the only UC with this issue.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, I am going to withhold anymore contributions to UCD until this gets straightened out. It’s a shame!
An extra $60 a year for students? Let’s begin looking at the inflated administration costs and lawsuits under Chancellor Vanderhoef?
This man is being irresponsible with the money and always tries to balance the books on the backs of students.
Let’s start sharing the concern Larry and pony up some responsibility. How about money from your retirement?
An extra $60 a year for students? Let’s begin looking at the inflated administration costs and lawsuits under Chancellor Vanderhoef?
This man is being irresponsible with the money and always tries to balance the books on the backs of students.
Let’s start sharing the concern Larry and pony up some responsibility. How about money from your retirement?
An extra $60 a year for students? Let’s begin looking at the inflated administration costs and lawsuits under Chancellor Vanderhoef?
This man is being irresponsible with the money and always tries to balance the books on the backs of students.
Let’s start sharing the concern Larry and pony up some responsibility. How about money from your retirement?
An extra $60 a year for students? Let’s begin looking at the inflated administration costs and lawsuits under Chancellor Vanderhoef?
This man is being irresponsible with the money and always tries to balance the books on the backs of students.
Let’s start sharing the concern Larry and pony up some responsibility. How about money from your retirement?
Thank you Anonymous!
You are right and I am wrong – calculators are a good thing. Numbers do not lie – please disregard my comment about the annual cost per student.
Still the $600 annual figure per dorm student appears inflated – that would mean all 500 employees are working the dorm dining halls. I read that they also work the other campus dining facilities. SAH
Thank you Anonymous!
You are right and I am wrong – calculators are a good thing. Numbers do not lie – please disregard my comment about the annual cost per student.
Still the $600 annual figure per dorm student appears inflated – that would mean all 500 employees are working the dorm dining halls. I read that they also work the other campus dining facilities. SAH
Thank you Anonymous!
You are right and I am wrong – calculators are a good thing. Numbers do not lie – please disregard my comment about the annual cost per student.
Still the $600 annual figure per dorm student appears inflated – that would mean all 500 employees are working the dorm dining halls. I read that they also work the other campus dining facilities. SAH
Thank you Anonymous!
You are right and I am wrong – calculators are a good thing. Numbers do not lie – please disregard my comment about the annual cost per student.
Still the $600 annual figure per dorm student appears inflated – that would mean all 500 employees are working the dorm dining halls. I read that they also work the other campus dining facilities. SAH
I believe other campuses that made food service workers UC workers did, in fact, make changes to the students’ meal plans or residence hall fees. As someone who is actively involved in various local and state advocacy issues, I generally pay up or shut up.
I believe other campuses that made food service workers UC workers did, in fact, make changes to the students’ meal plans or residence hall fees. As someone who is actively involved in various local and state advocacy issues, I generally pay up or shut up.
I believe other campuses that made food service workers UC workers did, in fact, make changes to the students’ meal plans or residence hall fees. As someone who is actively involved in various local and state advocacy issues, I generally pay up or shut up.
I believe other campuses that made food service workers UC workers did, in fact, make changes to the students’ meal plans or residence hall fees. As someone who is actively involved in various local and state advocacy issues, I generally pay up or shut up.
“In an article in Dateline UC Davis, the university said that it wanted to hear from the students “who pay the bills” regarding the demands of food workers efforts to become university employees.”
I think this is the most reasonable statement I’ve heard from the university when it comes to rising prices for a UC education.
It is completely callous of people who support higher wages and higher benefits for some workers to ignore the effect this will have on the students who will pay the bills. Just who in hell do you think is going to pay these expenses?
I would extend this principle to every time all major bargaining groups — faculty, staff, administrators, etc — ask for more money. UC now pays at least double — and in many cases triple — what it paid in inflation adjusted dollars for almost all of its higher-paid employees, including full professors, emeritus profs, deans, provosts, the chancellor, etc.
The result of this long-time profligacy has been to make a UC education unaffordable to a large segment of our population who could have afforded one back before the idea of making a fancy living off of the university came into vogue around 20 years ago or so.
I don’t know what can be done about it, but something else that irks me is the way the university puts up these student fee referendums, whereby students in one period who will not pay the increased fees pass the bill onto later classes who have to pay these ridiculous charges for things like athletic scholarships, a forced bus system and fancy gym equipment. None of that is central to getting a quality UC education — yet all students now have to pay for this crap.
P.S. Just to compare: when I started at UCSB in 1982, my annual fees for room and board in the dorms plus complete reg fees were less than $1,000. In today’s inflation adjusted dollars that would be around $2,100 year.
“In an article in Dateline UC Davis, the university said that it wanted to hear from the students “who pay the bills” regarding the demands of food workers efforts to become university employees.”
I think this is the most reasonable statement I’ve heard from the university when it comes to rising prices for a UC education.
It is completely callous of people who support higher wages and higher benefits for some workers to ignore the effect this will have on the students who will pay the bills. Just who in hell do you think is going to pay these expenses?
I would extend this principle to every time all major bargaining groups — faculty, staff, administrators, etc — ask for more money. UC now pays at least double — and in many cases triple — what it paid in inflation adjusted dollars for almost all of its higher-paid employees, including full professors, emeritus profs, deans, provosts, the chancellor, etc.
The result of this long-time profligacy has been to make a UC education unaffordable to a large segment of our population who could have afforded one back before the idea of making a fancy living off of the university came into vogue around 20 years ago or so.
I don’t know what can be done about it, but something else that irks me is the way the university puts up these student fee referendums, whereby students in one period who will not pay the increased fees pass the bill onto later classes who have to pay these ridiculous charges for things like athletic scholarships, a forced bus system and fancy gym equipment. None of that is central to getting a quality UC education — yet all students now have to pay for this crap.
P.S. Just to compare: when I started at UCSB in 1982, my annual fees for room and board in the dorms plus complete reg fees were less than $1,000. In today’s inflation adjusted dollars that would be around $2,100 year.
“In an article in Dateline UC Davis, the university said that it wanted to hear from the students “who pay the bills” regarding the demands of food workers efforts to become university employees.”
I think this is the most reasonable statement I’ve heard from the university when it comes to rising prices for a UC education.
It is completely callous of people who support higher wages and higher benefits for some workers to ignore the effect this will have on the students who will pay the bills. Just who in hell do you think is going to pay these expenses?
I would extend this principle to every time all major bargaining groups — faculty, staff, administrators, etc — ask for more money. UC now pays at least double — and in many cases triple — what it paid in inflation adjusted dollars for almost all of its higher-paid employees, including full professors, emeritus profs, deans, provosts, the chancellor, etc.
The result of this long-time profligacy has been to make a UC education unaffordable to a large segment of our population who could have afforded one back before the idea of making a fancy living off of the university came into vogue around 20 years ago or so.
I don’t know what can be done about it, but something else that irks me is the way the university puts up these student fee referendums, whereby students in one period who will not pay the increased fees pass the bill onto later classes who have to pay these ridiculous charges for things like athletic scholarships, a forced bus system and fancy gym equipment. None of that is central to getting a quality UC education — yet all students now have to pay for this crap.
P.S. Just to compare: when I started at UCSB in 1982, my annual fees for room and board in the dorms plus complete reg fees were less than $1,000. In today’s inflation adjusted dollars that would be around $2,100 year.
“In an article in Dateline UC Davis, the university said that it wanted to hear from the students “who pay the bills” regarding the demands of food workers efforts to become university employees.”
I think this is the most reasonable statement I’ve heard from the university when it comes to rising prices for a UC education.
It is completely callous of people who support higher wages and higher benefits for some workers to ignore the effect this will have on the students who will pay the bills. Just who in hell do you think is going to pay these expenses?
I would extend this principle to every time all major bargaining groups — faculty, staff, administrators, etc — ask for more money. UC now pays at least double — and in many cases triple — what it paid in inflation adjusted dollars for almost all of its higher-paid employees, including full professors, emeritus profs, deans, provosts, the chancellor, etc.
The result of this long-time profligacy has been to make a UC education unaffordable to a large segment of our population who could have afforded one back before the idea of making a fancy living off of the university came into vogue around 20 years ago or so.
I don’t know what can be done about it, but something else that irks me is the way the university puts up these student fee referendums, whereby students in one period who will not pay the increased fees pass the bill onto later classes who have to pay these ridiculous charges for things like athletic scholarships, a forced bus system and fancy gym equipment. None of that is central to getting a quality UC education — yet all students now have to pay for this crap.
P.S. Just to compare: when I started at UCSB in 1982, my annual fees for room and board in the dorms plus complete reg fees were less than $1,000. In today’s inflation adjusted dollars that would be around $2,100 year.
Mr. Rifkin,
You entirely miss the point of the article: i.e., the university trying to drive a wedge between students and workers. If the university really wanted to find the money to pay for the increase in workers’ wages and benefits, it’d find it.
Just like it finds money for all the building-goodies around campus that cost millions more than what the wages and bennies would cost.
Brian Kenyon
PS: How does the Unitrans Bus system = “crap?”
Mr. Rifkin,
You entirely miss the point of the article: i.e., the university trying to drive a wedge between students and workers. If the university really wanted to find the money to pay for the increase in workers’ wages and benefits, it’d find it.
Just like it finds money for all the building-goodies around campus that cost millions more than what the wages and bennies would cost.
Brian Kenyon
PS: How does the Unitrans Bus system = “crap?”
Mr. Rifkin,
You entirely miss the point of the article: i.e., the university trying to drive a wedge between students and workers. If the university really wanted to find the money to pay for the increase in workers’ wages and benefits, it’d find it.
Just like it finds money for all the building-goodies around campus that cost millions more than what the wages and bennies would cost.
Brian Kenyon
PS: How does the Unitrans Bus system = “crap?”
Mr. Rifkin,
You entirely miss the point of the article: i.e., the university trying to drive a wedge between students and workers. If the university really wanted to find the money to pay for the increase in workers’ wages and benefits, it’d find it.
Just like it finds money for all the building-goodies around campus that cost millions more than what the wages and bennies would cost.
Brian Kenyon
PS: How does the Unitrans Bus system = “crap?”
Rich:
“It is completely callous of people who support higher wages and higher benefits for some workers to ignore the effect this will have on the students who will pay the bills. Just who in hell do you think is going to pay these expenses?”
The problem I have with your view, is that the people making this argument already are taking a huge piece of cake, so they want to pass down the costs either on the workers who are making very low wages or the students who are paying a lot more intuition than they were just a few years ago.
As Anonymous said the tactic is one of divide and conquer, they want to turn this into an issue of student fee increases so as to create a divide between the two. But they never offer up other possibilities–such looking into budget priorities, looking into the amount that they are giving to upper administration, etc. Basically there are two small fish, they are making them fight over their bread crumbs as Mrak Hall rakes in the major doe.
Rich:
“It is completely callous of people who support higher wages and higher benefits for some workers to ignore the effect this will have on the students who will pay the bills. Just who in hell do you think is going to pay these expenses?”
The problem I have with your view, is that the people making this argument already are taking a huge piece of cake, so they want to pass down the costs either on the workers who are making very low wages or the students who are paying a lot more intuition than they were just a few years ago.
As Anonymous said the tactic is one of divide and conquer, they want to turn this into an issue of student fee increases so as to create a divide between the two. But they never offer up other possibilities–such looking into budget priorities, looking into the amount that they are giving to upper administration, etc. Basically there are two small fish, they are making them fight over their bread crumbs as Mrak Hall rakes in the major doe.
Rich:
“It is completely callous of people who support higher wages and higher benefits for some workers to ignore the effect this will have on the students who will pay the bills. Just who in hell do you think is going to pay these expenses?”
The problem I have with your view, is that the people making this argument already are taking a huge piece of cake, so they want to pass down the costs either on the workers who are making very low wages or the students who are paying a lot more intuition than they were just a few years ago.
As Anonymous said the tactic is one of divide and conquer, they want to turn this into an issue of student fee increases so as to create a divide between the two. But they never offer up other possibilities–such looking into budget priorities, looking into the amount that they are giving to upper administration, etc. Basically there are two small fish, they are making them fight over their bread crumbs as Mrak Hall rakes in the major doe.
Rich:
“It is completely callous of people who support higher wages and higher benefits for some workers to ignore the effect this will have on the students who will pay the bills. Just who in hell do you think is going to pay these expenses?”
The problem I have with your view, is that the people making this argument already are taking a huge piece of cake, so they want to pass down the costs either on the workers who are making very low wages or the students who are paying a lot more intuition than they were just a few years ago.
As Anonymous said the tactic is one of divide and conquer, they want to turn this into an issue of student fee increases so as to create a divide between the two. But they never offer up other possibilities–such looking into budget priorities, looking into the amount that they are giving to upper administration, etc. Basically there are two small fish, they are making them fight over their bread crumbs as Mrak Hall rakes in the major doe.
I think it is about time for the unions in the greater Sacramento area to take organized action against this administration.
Indeed, I would suggest that the general public as a whole should consider possibilities and follow through with them.
I don’t know what they would be. Perhaps, it would involve boycotting UCD events involving representatives of the administration, and requesting that their supporters do so.
Perhaps, it would involve some hearings over at the Legislature as to why UCD has been able to substantially increase administrative salaries, has been able to pay out at least one large settlement to an administrator, among others things, without expressing any concern for the impact upon the student population, but, all of sudden, it becomes an issue when it involves providing better pay and benefit for low income workers.
Let me put out suggestions, things to do until the Sodexho situation is resolved:
(1) Stop patronizing events at the Mondavi Center;
(2) Inform performers of the situation with Sodexho, and encourage them to delay appearing at the Mondavi Center;
(3) Stop booking and attending conferences at UCD facilities;
(4) Stop contributing to any fundraising drives involving the university; and
(5) Set up informational pickets at events involving the Chancellor and other high level UCD administrators.
Just a few ideas off the top of my head, although I’m sure that the Sodexho workers and organizers have already thought through this types of things, as well as others.
It will be interesting to see how the campaign evolves, as the administration, quite predictably, is taking the hard line. After all, why else have Vanderhoef and Co. gotten all those wonderful salary increases and fringe benefits from the business friendly Board of Regents, if not partially because of their ability to facilitate the needs of companies like Sodexho?
–Richard Estes
I think it is about time for the unions in the greater Sacramento area to take organized action against this administration.
Indeed, I would suggest that the general public as a whole should consider possibilities and follow through with them.
I don’t know what they would be. Perhaps, it would involve boycotting UCD events involving representatives of the administration, and requesting that their supporters do so.
Perhaps, it would involve some hearings over at the Legislature as to why UCD has been able to substantially increase administrative salaries, has been able to pay out at least one large settlement to an administrator, among others things, without expressing any concern for the impact upon the student population, but, all of sudden, it becomes an issue when it involves providing better pay and benefit for low income workers.
Let me put out suggestions, things to do until the Sodexho situation is resolved:
(1) Stop patronizing events at the Mondavi Center;
(2) Inform performers of the situation with Sodexho, and encourage them to delay appearing at the Mondavi Center;
(3) Stop booking and attending conferences at UCD facilities;
(4) Stop contributing to any fundraising drives involving the university; and
(5) Set up informational pickets at events involving the Chancellor and other high level UCD administrators.
Just a few ideas off the top of my head, although I’m sure that the Sodexho workers and organizers have already thought through this types of things, as well as others.
It will be interesting to see how the campaign evolves, as the administration, quite predictably, is taking the hard line. After all, why else have Vanderhoef and Co. gotten all those wonderful salary increases and fringe benefits from the business friendly Board of Regents, if not partially because of their ability to facilitate the needs of companies like Sodexho?
–Richard Estes
I think it is about time for the unions in the greater Sacramento area to take organized action against this administration.
Indeed, I would suggest that the general public as a whole should consider possibilities and follow through with them.
I don’t know what they would be. Perhaps, it would involve boycotting UCD events involving representatives of the administration, and requesting that their supporters do so.
Perhaps, it would involve some hearings over at the Legislature as to why UCD has been able to substantially increase administrative salaries, has been able to pay out at least one large settlement to an administrator, among others things, without expressing any concern for the impact upon the student population, but, all of sudden, it becomes an issue when it involves providing better pay and benefit for low income workers.
Let me put out suggestions, things to do until the Sodexho situation is resolved:
(1) Stop patronizing events at the Mondavi Center;
(2) Inform performers of the situation with Sodexho, and encourage them to delay appearing at the Mondavi Center;
(3) Stop booking and attending conferences at UCD facilities;
(4) Stop contributing to any fundraising drives involving the university; and
(5) Set up informational pickets at events involving the Chancellor and other high level UCD administrators.
Just a few ideas off the top of my head, although I’m sure that the Sodexho workers and organizers have already thought through this types of things, as well as others.
It will be interesting to see how the campaign evolves, as the administration, quite predictably, is taking the hard line. After all, why else have Vanderhoef and Co. gotten all those wonderful salary increases and fringe benefits from the business friendly Board of Regents, if not partially because of their ability to facilitate the needs of companies like Sodexho?
–Richard Estes
I think it is about time for the unions in the greater Sacramento area to take organized action against this administration.
Indeed, I would suggest that the general public as a whole should consider possibilities and follow through with them.
I don’t know what they would be. Perhaps, it would involve boycotting UCD events involving representatives of the administration, and requesting that their supporters do so.
Perhaps, it would involve some hearings over at the Legislature as to why UCD has been able to substantially increase administrative salaries, has been able to pay out at least one large settlement to an administrator, among others things, without expressing any concern for the impact upon the student population, but, all of sudden, it becomes an issue when it involves providing better pay and benefit for low income workers.
Let me put out suggestions, things to do until the Sodexho situation is resolved:
(1) Stop patronizing events at the Mondavi Center;
(2) Inform performers of the situation with Sodexho, and encourage them to delay appearing at the Mondavi Center;
(3) Stop booking and attending conferences at UCD facilities;
(4) Stop contributing to any fundraising drives involving the university; and
(5) Set up informational pickets at events involving the Chancellor and other high level UCD administrators.
Just a few ideas off the top of my head, although I’m sure that the Sodexho workers and organizers have already thought through this types of things, as well as others.
It will be interesting to see how the campaign evolves, as the administration, quite predictably, is taking the hard line. After all, why else have Vanderhoef and Co. gotten all those wonderful salary increases and fringe benefits from the business friendly Board of Regents, if not partially because of their ability to facilitate the needs of companies like Sodexho?
–Richard Estes
funny how they never bothered to ask students whether we wanted to foot the bill for all of their executive raises, all these years as they jacked up our tuition and fees, while stiffing workers.
but apparently “retaining good people” only matters if you’re an executive. those food service workers are just an unnecessary expense to the regents. perhaps they need to spend a week without food service workers showing up to work, and see how well their campus works.
for what it’s worth, i’d be willing to pay the higher fees, but it is reduiculous the way that the university has jacked up fees 100% in the past several years as a budget-balancing measure, instead of properly funding public education with statewide funds. the UC is very nearly a private university, in terms of the ratio of tuition paid to cost of providing said education, the public monies have not kept up with costs, and what money has been spent has gone elsewhere, not to the students.
funny how they never bothered to ask students whether we wanted to foot the bill for all of their executive raises, all these years as they jacked up our tuition and fees, while stiffing workers.
but apparently “retaining good people” only matters if you’re an executive. those food service workers are just an unnecessary expense to the regents. perhaps they need to spend a week without food service workers showing up to work, and see how well their campus works.
for what it’s worth, i’d be willing to pay the higher fees, but it is reduiculous the way that the university has jacked up fees 100% in the past several years as a budget-balancing measure, instead of properly funding public education with statewide funds. the UC is very nearly a private university, in terms of the ratio of tuition paid to cost of providing said education, the public monies have not kept up with costs, and what money has been spent has gone elsewhere, not to the students.
funny how they never bothered to ask students whether we wanted to foot the bill for all of their executive raises, all these years as they jacked up our tuition and fees, while stiffing workers.
but apparently “retaining good people” only matters if you’re an executive. those food service workers are just an unnecessary expense to the regents. perhaps they need to spend a week without food service workers showing up to work, and see how well their campus works.
for what it’s worth, i’d be willing to pay the higher fees, but it is reduiculous the way that the university has jacked up fees 100% in the past several years as a budget-balancing measure, instead of properly funding public education with statewide funds. the UC is very nearly a private university, in terms of the ratio of tuition paid to cost of providing said education, the public monies have not kept up with costs, and what money has been spent has gone elsewhere, not to the students.
funny how they never bothered to ask students whether we wanted to foot the bill for all of their executive raises, all these years as they jacked up our tuition and fees, while stiffing workers.
but apparently “retaining good people” only matters if you’re an executive. those food service workers are just an unnecessary expense to the regents. perhaps they need to spend a week without food service workers showing up to work, and see how well their campus works.
for what it’s worth, i’d be willing to pay the higher fees, but it is reduiculous the way that the university has jacked up fees 100% in the past several years as a budget-balancing measure, instead of properly funding public education with statewide funds. the UC is very nearly a private university, in terms of the ratio of tuition paid to cost of providing said education, the public monies have not kept up with costs, and what money has been spent has gone elsewhere, not to the students.
“You entirely miss the point of the article: i.e., the university trying to drive a wedge between students and workers.”
No, Brian, I understand the wedge. There is a wedge. One side wants more money and the other side will have to pay the bill.
“If the university really wanted to find the money to pay for the increase in workers’ wages and benefits, it’d find it.”
Of course, they’ll find it by charging the students more money for the food services.
For you to think that it will come from anywhere else is simply stupid.
“How does the Unitrans Bus system = “crap?”
Because it is completely outside of the bounds of what is necessary to get a quality university education. If the university would stick to that principle, then students would not have to pay for so many ancillary goodies.
For those who prefer to ride a bus rather than walk or ride a bike, let them pay for it. Don’t force thousands and thousands of kids who don’t want to pay for these non-essentials to pay for them.
The bus system, it was argued 17 years ago when this whole issue arose, was supposed to get kids out of their cars. But the reality has always been that the bus system replaced the bicycle system. 18 years ago, almost every UCD student rode a bike to campus. Now it is well less than half. You perhaps are not old enough to remember when Davis really was crowded with bikes.
So, in essence, we’ve exchanged a healthy, non-polluting form of transportation with an unhealthy one that burns fossil fuels. That, to me, is crap. And nowhere does it fit in with the UC mission statement, which is to provide a worldclass college education to California’s best students at an affordable price.
“You entirely miss the point of the article: i.e., the university trying to drive a wedge between students and workers.”
No, Brian, I understand the wedge. There is a wedge. One side wants more money and the other side will have to pay the bill.
“If the university really wanted to find the money to pay for the increase in workers’ wages and benefits, it’d find it.”
Of course, they’ll find it by charging the students more money for the food services.
For you to think that it will come from anywhere else is simply stupid.
“How does the Unitrans Bus system = “crap?”
Because it is completely outside of the bounds of what is necessary to get a quality university education. If the university would stick to that principle, then students would not have to pay for so many ancillary goodies.
For those who prefer to ride a bus rather than walk or ride a bike, let them pay for it. Don’t force thousands and thousands of kids who don’t want to pay for these non-essentials to pay for them.
The bus system, it was argued 17 years ago when this whole issue arose, was supposed to get kids out of their cars. But the reality has always been that the bus system replaced the bicycle system. 18 years ago, almost every UCD student rode a bike to campus. Now it is well less than half. You perhaps are not old enough to remember when Davis really was crowded with bikes.
So, in essence, we’ve exchanged a healthy, non-polluting form of transportation with an unhealthy one that burns fossil fuels. That, to me, is crap. And nowhere does it fit in with the UC mission statement, which is to provide a worldclass college education to California’s best students at an affordable price.
“You entirely miss the point of the article: i.e., the university trying to drive a wedge between students and workers.”
No, Brian, I understand the wedge. There is a wedge. One side wants more money and the other side will have to pay the bill.
“If the university really wanted to find the money to pay for the increase in workers’ wages and benefits, it’d find it.”
Of course, they’ll find it by charging the students more money for the food services.
For you to think that it will come from anywhere else is simply stupid.
“How does the Unitrans Bus system = “crap?”
Because it is completely outside of the bounds of what is necessary to get a quality university education. If the university would stick to that principle, then students would not have to pay for so many ancillary goodies.
For those who prefer to ride a bus rather than walk or ride a bike, let them pay for it. Don’t force thousands and thousands of kids who don’t want to pay for these non-essentials to pay for them.
The bus system, it was argued 17 years ago when this whole issue arose, was supposed to get kids out of their cars. But the reality has always been that the bus system replaced the bicycle system. 18 years ago, almost every UCD student rode a bike to campus. Now it is well less than half. You perhaps are not old enough to remember when Davis really was crowded with bikes.
So, in essence, we’ve exchanged a healthy, non-polluting form of transportation with an unhealthy one that burns fossil fuels. That, to me, is crap. And nowhere does it fit in with the UC mission statement, which is to provide a worldclass college education to California’s best students at an affordable price.
“You entirely miss the point of the article: i.e., the university trying to drive a wedge between students and workers.”
No, Brian, I understand the wedge. There is a wedge. One side wants more money and the other side will have to pay the bill.
“If the university really wanted to find the money to pay for the increase in workers’ wages and benefits, it’d find it.”
Of course, they’ll find it by charging the students more money for the food services.
For you to think that it will come from anywhere else is simply stupid.
“How does the Unitrans Bus system = “crap?”
Because it is completely outside of the bounds of what is necessary to get a quality university education. If the university would stick to that principle, then students would not have to pay for so many ancillary goodies.
For those who prefer to ride a bus rather than walk or ride a bike, let them pay for it. Don’t force thousands and thousands of kids who don’t want to pay for these non-essentials to pay for them.
The bus system, it was argued 17 years ago when this whole issue arose, was supposed to get kids out of their cars. But the reality has always been that the bus system replaced the bicycle system. 18 years ago, almost every UCD student rode a bike to campus. Now it is well less than half. You perhaps are not old enough to remember when Davis really was crowded with bikes.
So, in essence, we’ve exchanged a healthy, non-polluting form of transportation with an unhealthy one that burns fossil fuels. That, to me, is crap. And nowhere does it fit in with the UC mission statement, which is to provide a worldclass college education to California’s best students at an affordable price.
I think it’s interesting the way that the University has been struggling for years to not have to bring these workers under their payroll. I highly doubt that number given as the costs to the students is that much of the budget.
Additionally, other UC’s have been union friendly enough to realize that these conditions are unacceptable for workers. It’s too bad that we can’t find a way to mimic what has been done at UC Santa Cruz or to at least find a way to do something similar. It just comes down to having an administration that doesn’t care and that’s very disheartening.
I think it’s interesting the way that the University has been struggling for years to not have to bring these workers under their payroll. I highly doubt that number given as the costs to the students is that much of the budget.
Additionally, other UC’s have been union friendly enough to realize that these conditions are unacceptable for workers. It’s too bad that we can’t find a way to mimic what has been done at UC Santa Cruz or to at least find a way to do something similar. It just comes down to having an administration that doesn’t care and that’s very disheartening.
I think it’s interesting the way that the University has been struggling for years to not have to bring these workers under their payroll. I highly doubt that number given as the costs to the students is that much of the budget.
Additionally, other UC’s have been union friendly enough to realize that these conditions are unacceptable for workers. It’s too bad that we can’t find a way to mimic what has been done at UC Santa Cruz or to at least find a way to do something similar. It just comes down to having an administration that doesn’t care and that’s very disheartening.
I think it’s interesting the way that the University has been struggling for years to not have to bring these workers under their payroll. I highly doubt that number given as the costs to the students is that much of the budget.
Additionally, other UC’s have been union friendly enough to realize that these conditions are unacceptable for workers. It’s too bad that we can’t find a way to mimic what has been done at UC Santa Cruz or to at least find a way to do something similar. It just comes down to having an administration that doesn’t care and that’s very disheartening.
I was part of a meeting yesterday (6/4) in which Ms. Gong sat down with a group of student representatives and asked how they thought we should pay for this. While I appreciate them wanting student input there is no doubt in my mind that they are attempting to drive a wedge between students and workers. The overwhelming consensus among students is to support ALL workers on our campus. Davis is a strong community, a united community, and the students realize it is in the best interest of our entire community to provide respect, dignity and a fair wage to these employees.
Andrew Peake
ASUCD Senator
I was part of a meeting yesterday (6/4) in which Ms. Gong sat down with a group of student representatives and asked how they thought we should pay for this. While I appreciate them wanting student input there is no doubt in my mind that they are attempting to drive a wedge between students and workers. The overwhelming consensus among students is to support ALL workers on our campus. Davis is a strong community, a united community, and the students realize it is in the best interest of our entire community to provide respect, dignity and a fair wage to these employees.
Andrew Peake
ASUCD Senator
I was part of a meeting yesterday (6/4) in which Ms. Gong sat down with a group of student representatives and asked how they thought we should pay for this. While I appreciate them wanting student input there is no doubt in my mind that they are attempting to drive a wedge between students and workers. The overwhelming consensus among students is to support ALL workers on our campus. Davis is a strong community, a united community, and the students realize it is in the best interest of our entire community to provide respect, dignity and a fair wage to these employees.
Andrew Peake
ASUCD Senator
I was part of a meeting yesterday (6/4) in which Ms. Gong sat down with a group of student representatives and asked how they thought we should pay for this. While I appreciate them wanting student input there is no doubt in my mind that they are attempting to drive a wedge between students and workers. The overwhelming consensus among students is to support ALL workers on our campus. Davis is a strong community, a united community, and the students realize it is in the best interest of our entire community to provide respect, dignity and a fair wage to these employees.
Andrew Peake
ASUCD Senator
“There is a wedge. One side wants more money and the other side will have to pay the bill.”
Rich:
And I would suggest that making it a zero-sum, two player game, is a great ploy by the university, in fact, it is not a wedge between two sides, but in fact, a wedge between many sides. The university has tried to turn it into a zero-sum game whereby if the workers get more it comes from the students. As opposed to a game where a piece of that pie can be sliced off from a number of different places. It seems to me, that you have swallowed the university’s game by accepting merely two parties.
“There is a wedge. One side wants more money and the other side will have to pay the bill.”
Rich:
And I would suggest that making it a zero-sum, two player game, is a great ploy by the university, in fact, it is not a wedge between two sides, but in fact, a wedge between many sides. The university has tried to turn it into a zero-sum game whereby if the workers get more it comes from the students. As opposed to a game where a piece of that pie can be sliced off from a number of different places. It seems to me, that you have swallowed the university’s game by accepting merely two parties.
“There is a wedge. One side wants more money and the other side will have to pay the bill.”
Rich:
And I would suggest that making it a zero-sum, two player game, is a great ploy by the university, in fact, it is not a wedge between two sides, but in fact, a wedge between many sides. The university has tried to turn it into a zero-sum game whereby if the workers get more it comes from the students. As opposed to a game where a piece of that pie can be sliced off from a number of different places. It seems to me, that you have swallowed the university’s game by accepting merely two parties.
“There is a wedge. One side wants more money and the other side will have to pay the bill.”
Rich:
And I would suggest that making it a zero-sum, two player game, is a great ploy by the university, in fact, it is not a wedge between two sides, but in fact, a wedge between many sides. The university has tried to turn it into a zero-sum game whereby if the workers get more it comes from the students. As opposed to a game where a piece of that pie can be sliced off from a number of different places. It seems to me, that you have swallowed the university’s game by accepting merely two parties.
This is of course completely disregarding the fact if the workers became University employed and Sodexho left UCD, a reallocation of their profits and donations to UCD Administration would most likely cover all increases in operating costs due to hiring new managers, getting new food contracts, and paying the workers more.
This is of course completely disregarding the fact if the workers became University employed and Sodexho left UCD, a reallocation of their profits and donations to UCD Administration would most likely cover all increases in operating costs due to hiring new managers, getting new food contracts, and paying the workers more.
This is of course completely disregarding the fact if the workers became University employed and Sodexho left UCD, a reallocation of their profits and donations to UCD Administration would most likely cover all increases in operating costs due to hiring new managers, getting new food contracts, and paying the workers more.
This is of course completely disregarding the fact if the workers became University employed and Sodexho left UCD, a reallocation of their profits and donations to UCD Administration would most likely cover all increases in operating costs due to hiring new managers, getting new food contracts, and paying the workers more.
I’d be interested in knowing who all of the students were that were meeting with Gong. There are some that are major suck ups to any administrators, because they believe it will gain them brownie points on their resume or references. This is all too common by Larry and others in the administration.
I’d be interested in knowing who all of the students were that were meeting with Gong. There are some that are major suck ups to any administrators, because they believe it will gain them brownie points on their resume or references. This is all too common by Larry and others in the administration.
I’d be interested in knowing who all of the students were that were meeting with Gong. There are some that are major suck ups to any administrators, because they believe it will gain them brownie points on their resume or references. This is all too common by Larry and others in the administration.
I’d be interested in knowing who all of the students were that were meeting with Gong. There are some that are major suck ups to any administrators, because they believe it will gain them brownie points on their resume or references. This is all too common by Larry and others in the administration.
“It seems to me, that you have swallowed the university’s game by accepting merely two parties.”
You are completely right. And that is because I have the experience of watching how every increased marginal expense that the University of California has incurred over the last 25 years has been dumped on the students. It is not limited to this particular labor dispute. It includes multi-fold raises for virutually every contractor and employee who makes his money off of the university.
It may sound rhetorically pleasing to fool yourself into pretending that some group other than the students will pay this freight, but that rhetoric makes no sense when seen in the light of a profligate university that is now nearly as expensive or even more expensive than many quality private schools.
“It seems to me, that you have swallowed the university’s game by accepting merely two parties.”
You are completely right. And that is because I have the experience of watching how every increased marginal expense that the University of California has incurred over the last 25 years has been dumped on the students. It is not limited to this particular labor dispute. It includes multi-fold raises for virutually every contractor and employee who makes his money off of the university.
It may sound rhetorically pleasing to fool yourself into pretending that some group other than the students will pay this freight, but that rhetoric makes no sense when seen in the light of a profligate university that is now nearly as expensive or even more expensive than many quality private schools.
“It seems to me, that you have swallowed the university’s game by accepting merely two parties.”
You are completely right. And that is because I have the experience of watching how every increased marginal expense that the University of California has incurred over the last 25 years has been dumped on the students. It is not limited to this particular labor dispute. It includes multi-fold raises for virutually every contractor and employee who makes his money off of the university.
It may sound rhetorically pleasing to fool yourself into pretending that some group other than the students will pay this freight, but that rhetoric makes no sense when seen in the light of a profligate university that is now nearly as expensive or even more expensive than many quality private schools.
“It seems to me, that you have swallowed the university’s game by accepting merely two parties.”
You are completely right. And that is because I have the experience of watching how every increased marginal expense that the University of California has incurred over the last 25 years has been dumped on the students. It is not limited to this particular labor dispute. It includes multi-fold raises for virutually every contractor and employee who makes his money off of the university.
It may sound rhetorically pleasing to fool yourself into pretending that some group other than the students will pay this freight, but that rhetoric makes no sense when seen in the light of a profligate university that is now nearly as expensive or even more expensive than many quality private schools.
Where is all that cheap migrant labor when you need it? Surely we could get illegals to flip burgers for less. And if they want to start a union, tell ’em the INS wants to talk to them.
Where is all that cheap migrant labor when you need it? Surely we could get illegals to flip burgers for less. And if they want to start a union, tell ’em the INS wants to talk to them.
Where is all that cheap migrant labor when you need it? Surely we could get illegals to flip burgers for less. And if they want to start a union, tell ’em the INS wants to talk to them.
Where is all that cheap migrant labor when you need it? Surely we could get illegals to flip burgers for less. And if they want to start a union, tell ’em the INS wants to talk to them.
Mr. Rifkin says UC Davis is a profligate university. As if that were set in stone. I agree with Richard Estes and the food service workers–its time to start boycotting the needless profligacies of the university, such as Mondavi Center shows–see Estes post above for a full list of profligacies.
I mean we’re talking a paltry couple of million every year to bring food service workers on a par with food service workers on all the other UC campuses compared to many, many, many millions spent on steel and glass right now or about to be.
Why couldn’t some of the campus building projects be slowed down and some of the resultant savings be moved into areas that would benefit the food service workers, with no detriment to students?
That’s the bottom line. The money’s there, where’s the will to move it around a bit?
–Brian Kenyon
Mr. Rifkin says UC Davis is a profligate university. As if that were set in stone. I agree with Richard Estes and the food service workers–its time to start boycotting the needless profligacies of the university, such as Mondavi Center shows–see Estes post above for a full list of profligacies.
I mean we’re talking a paltry couple of million every year to bring food service workers on a par with food service workers on all the other UC campuses compared to many, many, many millions spent on steel and glass right now or about to be.
Why couldn’t some of the campus building projects be slowed down and some of the resultant savings be moved into areas that would benefit the food service workers, with no detriment to students?
That’s the bottom line. The money’s there, where’s the will to move it around a bit?
–Brian Kenyon
Mr. Rifkin says UC Davis is a profligate university. As if that were set in stone. I agree with Richard Estes and the food service workers–its time to start boycotting the needless profligacies of the university, such as Mondavi Center shows–see Estes post above for a full list of profligacies.
I mean we’re talking a paltry couple of million every year to bring food service workers on a par with food service workers on all the other UC campuses compared to many, many, many millions spent on steel and glass right now or about to be.
Why couldn’t some of the campus building projects be slowed down and some of the resultant savings be moved into areas that would benefit the food service workers, with no detriment to students?
That’s the bottom line. The money’s there, where’s the will to move it around a bit?
–Brian Kenyon
Mr. Rifkin says UC Davis is a profligate university. As if that were set in stone. I agree with Richard Estes and the food service workers–its time to start boycotting the needless profligacies of the university, such as Mondavi Center shows–see Estes post above for a full list of profligacies.
I mean we’re talking a paltry couple of million every year to bring food service workers on a par with food service workers on all the other UC campuses compared to many, many, many millions spent on steel and glass right now or about to be.
Why couldn’t some of the campus building projects be slowed down and some of the resultant savings be moved into areas that would benefit the food service workers, with no detriment to students?
That’s the bottom line. The money’s there, where’s the will to move it around a bit?
–Brian Kenyon
It seems to me that the UC, as a world class university system, and UCD, as part of that system, needs to decide whether paying its employees a living wage is worth the financial cost of doing so. My feeling is that it is so.
Universities preach about how they help young people become ethical, educated adults living meaningful lives. This is a chance for the school to stand behind its own posturing and do something simply because it’s the right thing to do.
UCD decided it was time to go D1 a few years ago, not because they’d really make any money off it, (most stats show schools generally lose money on big athletic programs) but presumably because it felt the status conveyed by a large athletic program is worth the cost.
This same reasoning should apply in the decision to pay UCD’s poorest workers a living wage. If it’s going to sell itself as a leader, UCD should hold itself to this higher standard; it should be a great place to teach, to go to school and even to work in the cafeteria. UCD should feel an obligation to preserve the dignity of its employees.
An effective administration would not be wasting time bickering over this issue. Of course our employees should live on a fair wage. Of course they should. Instead of spending time fighting what should be an inevitability, the administration should focus on finding more funding for research, for improvements to facilities, for scholarships, and more money for salaries up and down the scale.
Instead of greedily bickering over an issue that should be a non-issue, UCD should be actively making this a non-issue by focusing on bringing in enough money to pay this higher wage with little or no impact to the students or school.
The public universities in California were created with the purpose of making the American Dream attainable for people outside the wealthy class. As a state, California thrived for years on the educated people produced by these schools. Paying the employees of these universities an unfair wage goes directly against the principles the CSU and UC were founded on, and preserves the class separation these schools were created to break.
The concerns about the costs of providing a living wage to these employees posted above seem to me to miss the point of a living wage entirely. In the most prestigious university system in the world, in a school loaded with intelligent, creative people, there has to be a sustainable solution for this problem that doesn’t include choosing between an affordable yet prestigious education and a living wage for the employees who help support that environment.
Suggesting otherwise betrays a class-biased perspective that seems to assume that only the middle and upper-class sons and daughters of California are entitled to the benefits of the UC system, and those lower classes relegated to working in the service industries are to be taken advantage of rather than respected and allowed a piece of the American dream.
It seems to me that the UC, as a world class university system, and UCD, as part of that system, needs to decide whether paying its employees a living wage is worth the financial cost of doing so. My feeling is that it is so.
Universities preach about how they help young people become ethical, educated adults living meaningful lives. This is a chance for the school to stand behind its own posturing and do something simply because it’s the right thing to do.
UCD decided it was time to go D1 a few years ago, not because they’d really make any money off it, (most stats show schools generally lose money on big athletic programs) but presumably because it felt the status conveyed by a large athletic program is worth the cost.
This same reasoning should apply in the decision to pay UCD’s poorest workers a living wage. If it’s going to sell itself as a leader, UCD should hold itself to this higher standard; it should be a great place to teach, to go to school and even to work in the cafeteria. UCD should feel an obligation to preserve the dignity of its employees.
An effective administration would not be wasting time bickering over this issue. Of course our employees should live on a fair wage. Of course they should. Instead of spending time fighting what should be an inevitability, the administration should focus on finding more funding for research, for improvements to facilities, for scholarships, and more money for salaries up and down the scale.
Instead of greedily bickering over an issue that should be a non-issue, UCD should be actively making this a non-issue by focusing on bringing in enough money to pay this higher wage with little or no impact to the students or school.
The public universities in California were created with the purpose of making the American Dream attainable for people outside the wealthy class. As a state, California thrived for years on the educated people produced by these schools. Paying the employees of these universities an unfair wage goes directly against the principles the CSU and UC were founded on, and preserves the class separation these schools were created to break.
The concerns about the costs of providing a living wage to these employees posted above seem to me to miss the point of a living wage entirely. In the most prestigious university system in the world, in a school loaded with intelligent, creative people, there has to be a sustainable solution for this problem that doesn’t include choosing between an affordable yet prestigious education and a living wage for the employees who help support that environment.
Suggesting otherwise betrays a class-biased perspective that seems to assume that only the middle and upper-class sons and daughters of California are entitled to the benefits of the UC system, and those lower classes relegated to working in the service industries are to be taken advantage of rather than respected and allowed a piece of the American dream.
It seems to me that the UC, as a world class university system, and UCD, as part of that system, needs to decide whether paying its employees a living wage is worth the financial cost of doing so. My feeling is that it is so.
Universities preach about how they help young people become ethical, educated adults living meaningful lives. This is a chance for the school to stand behind its own posturing and do something simply because it’s the right thing to do.
UCD decided it was time to go D1 a few years ago, not because they’d really make any money off it, (most stats show schools generally lose money on big athletic programs) but presumably because it felt the status conveyed by a large athletic program is worth the cost.
This same reasoning should apply in the decision to pay UCD’s poorest workers a living wage. If it’s going to sell itself as a leader, UCD should hold itself to this higher standard; it should be a great place to teach, to go to school and even to work in the cafeteria. UCD should feel an obligation to preserve the dignity of its employees.
An effective administration would not be wasting time bickering over this issue. Of course our employees should live on a fair wage. Of course they should. Instead of spending time fighting what should be an inevitability, the administration should focus on finding more funding for research, for improvements to facilities, for scholarships, and more money for salaries up and down the scale.
Instead of greedily bickering over an issue that should be a non-issue, UCD should be actively making this a non-issue by focusing on bringing in enough money to pay this higher wage with little or no impact to the students or school.
The public universities in California were created with the purpose of making the American Dream attainable for people outside the wealthy class. As a state, California thrived for years on the educated people produced by these schools. Paying the employees of these universities an unfair wage goes directly against the principles the CSU and UC were founded on, and preserves the class separation these schools were created to break.
The concerns about the costs of providing a living wage to these employees posted above seem to me to miss the point of a living wage entirely. In the most prestigious university system in the world, in a school loaded with intelligent, creative people, there has to be a sustainable solution for this problem that doesn’t include choosing between an affordable yet prestigious education and a living wage for the employees who help support that environment.
Suggesting otherwise betrays a class-biased perspective that seems to assume that only the middle and upper-class sons and daughters of California are entitled to the benefits of the UC system, and those lower classes relegated to working in the service industries are to be taken advantage of rather than respected and allowed a piece of the American dream.
It seems to me that the UC, as a world class university system, and UCD, as part of that system, needs to decide whether paying its employees a living wage is worth the financial cost of doing so. My feeling is that it is so.
Universities preach about how they help young people become ethical, educated adults living meaningful lives. This is a chance for the school to stand behind its own posturing and do something simply because it’s the right thing to do.
UCD decided it was time to go D1 a few years ago, not because they’d really make any money off it, (most stats show schools generally lose money on big athletic programs) but presumably because it felt the status conveyed by a large athletic program is worth the cost.
This same reasoning should apply in the decision to pay UCD’s poorest workers a living wage. If it’s going to sell itself as a leader, UCD should hold itself to this higher standard; it should be a great place to teach, to go to school and even to work in the cafeteria. UCD should feel an obligation to preserve the dignity of its employees.
An effective administration would not be wasting time bickering over this issue. Of course our employees should live on a fair wage. Of course they should. Instead of spending time fighting what should be an inevitability, the administration should focus on finding more funding for research, for improvements to facilities, for scholarships, and more money for salaries up and down the scale.
Instead of greedily bickering over an issue that should be a non-issue, UCD should be actively making this a non-issue by focusing on bringing in enough money to pay this higher wage with little or no impact to the students or school.
The public universities in California were created with the purpose of making the American Dream attainable for people outside the wealthy class. As a state, California thrived for years on the educated people produced by these schools. Paying the employees of these universities an unfair wage goes directly against the principles the CSU and UC were founded on, and preserves the class separation these schools were created to break.
The concerns about the costs of providing a living wage to these employees posted above seem to me to miss the point of a living wage entirely. In the most prestigious university system in the world, in a school loaded with intelligent, creative people, there has to be a sustainable solution for this problem that doesn’t include choosing between an affordable yet prestigious education and a living wage for the employees who help support that environment.
Suggesting otherwise betrays a class-biased perspective that seems to assume that only the middle and upper-class sons and daughters of California are entitled to the benefits of the UC system, and those lower classes relegated to working in the service industries are to be taken advantage of rather than respected and allowed a piece of the American dream.
Doug-
TINSTAAFL*
The $600 per student cost increase should be borne by the students if they want to see a change in benefits for the workers. The University is not going to get a reasearch grant, capital budget increase or alumni donation to cover this annual expense increase. There is zero chance that the University could generate the kind of operating margins that a private company could do if they ran the foodservices themselves so it is likely that the food costs would rise even without a pay hike. That is why this kind of service makes sense to outsource.
I am personally fine with the idea of the workers becoming University Employees. Heck, I am fine with them all getting a pay raise, vacation time and a 401-K plan. I am fine with this as long as we dont all cover our eyes and hope that the tooth fairy will pay for it. This whole discussion is so much drivel until people advocating the change will pull their head out of the dizzying enthusiasm of a “real honest to goodness protest!” and identify a source of funding for what they want.
The only source for this kind of funds is the students who use the services. They seem to want the workers to get the benefits, they use the food services and they should be free to choose, and free to pay the added costs.
*There Is No Such Thing As A Free Lunch…
Doug-
TINSTAAFL*
The $600 per student cost increase should be borne by the students if they want to see a change in benefits for the workers. The University is not going to get a reasearch grant, capital budget increase or alumni donation to cover this annual expense increase. There is zero chance that the University could generate the kind of operating margins that a private company could do if they ran the foodservices themselves so it is likely that the food costs would rise even without a pay hike. That is why this kind of service makes sense to outsource.
I am personally fine with the idea of the workers becoming University Employees. Heck, I am fine with them all getting a pay raise, vacation time and a 401-K plan. I am fine with this as long as we dont all cover our eyes and hope that the tooth fairy will pay for it. This whole discussion is so much drivel until people advocating the change will pull their head out of the dizzying enthusiasm of a “real honest to goodness protest!” and identify a source of funding for what they want.
The only source for this kind of funds is the students who use the services. They seem to want the workers to get the benefits, they use the food services and they should be free to choose, and free to pay the added costs.
*There Is No Such Thing As A Free Lunch…
Doug-
TINSTAAFL*
The $600 per student cost increase should be borne by the students if they want to see a change in benefits for the workers. The University is not going to get a reasearch grant, capital budget increase or alumni donation to cover this annual expense increase. There is zero chance that the University could generate the kind of operating margins that a private company could do if they ran the foodservices themselves so it is likely that the food costs would rise even without a pay hike. That is why this kind of service makes sense to outsource.
I am personally fine with the idea of the workers becoming University Employees. Heck, I am fine with them all getting a pay raise, vacation time and a 401-K plan. I am fine with this as long as we dont all cover our eyes and hope that the tooth fairy will pay for it. This whole discussion is so much drivel until people advocating the change will pull their head out of the dizzying enthusiasm of a “real honest to goodness protest!” and identify a source of funding for what they want.
The only source for this kind of funds is the students who use the services. They seem to want the workers to get the benefits, they use the food services and they should be free to choose, and free to pay the added costs.
*There Is No Such Thing As A Free Lunch…
Doug-
TINSTAAFL*
The $600 per student cost increase should be borne by the students if they want to see a change in benefits for the workers. The University is not going to get a reasearch grant, capital budget increase or alumni donation to cover this annual expense increase. There is zero chance that the University could generate the kind of operating margins that a private company could do if they ran the foodservices themselves so it is likely that the food costs would rise even without a pay hike. That is why this kind of service makes sense to outsource.
I am personally fine with the idea of the workers becoming University Employees. Heck, I am fine with them all getting a pay raise, vacation time and a 401-K plan. I am fine with this as long as we dont all cover our eyes and hope that the tooth fairy will pay for it. This whole discussion is so much drivel until people advocating the change will pull their head out of the dizzying enthusiasm of a “real honest to goodness protest!” and identify a source of funding for what they want.
The only source for this kind of funds is the students who use the services. They seem to want the workers to get the benefits, they use the food services and they should be free to choose, and free to pay the added costs.
*There Is No Such Thing As A Free Lunch…
Mike,
am sure, with a little imagination,
the money can be found…what’s lacking is imagination and the will to do the right thing, not money.
Bottom line here is a bureaucracy feels threatened and in the face of rationality is fighting back every way it knows how, except by just finding the money to pay the food workers a fair wage, and provide benefits without screwing the students.
Here’s an idea, take, on an annual basis, an appropriate percentage of the salaries of all UC Davis bureaucrats making above $100,000 per year (quite a few of them hanging around, I’ll bet)–a tax the wealthy approach–and put that money toward paying the food workers a fair wage and proper benefits.
–Brian Kenyon
Mike,
am sure, with a little imagination,
the money can be found…what’s lacking is imagination and the will to do the right thing, not money.
Bottom line here is a bureaucracy feels threatened and in the face of rationality is fighting back every way it knows how, except by just finding the money to pay the food workers a fair wage, and provide benefits without screwing the students.
Here’s an idea, take, on an annual basis, an appropriate percentage of the salaries of all UC Davis bureaucrats making above $100,000 per year (quite a few of them hanging around, I’ll bet)–a tax the wealthy approach–and put that money toward paying the food workers a fair wage and proper benefits.
–Brian Kenyon
Mike,
am sure, with a little imagination,
the money can be found…what’s lacking is imagination and the will to do the right thing, not money.
Bottom line here is a bureaucracy feels threatened and in the face of rationality is fighting back every way it knows how, except by just finding the money to pay the food workers a fair wage, and provide benefits without screwing the students.
Here’s an idea, take, on an annual basis, an appropriate percentage of the salaries of all UC Davis bureaucrats making above $100,000 per year (quite a few of them hanging around, I’ll bet)–a tax the wealthy approach–and put that money toward paying the food workers a fair wage and proper benefits.
–Brian Kenyon
Mike,
am sure, with a little imagination,
the money can be found…what’s lacking is imagination and the will to do the right thing, not money.
Bottom line here is a bureaucracy feels threatened and in the face of rationality is fighting back every way it knows how, except by just finding the money to pay the food workers a fair wage, and provide benefits without screwing the students.
Here’s an idea, take, on an annual basis, an appropriate percentage of the salaries of all UC Davis bureaucrats making above $100,000 per year (quite a few of them hanging around, I’ll bet)–a tax the wealthy approach–and put that money toward paying the food workers a fair wage and proper benefits.
–Brian Kenyon
“They seem to want the workers to get the benefits, they use the food services and they should be free to choose, and free to pay the added costs.”
Mike, much like other student fee increases, the group of current students who say they support this $600 increase in fees will not be the ones paying for it. The costs will be borne by the classes that enter the dorms in the next 2-3 years and thereafter. Those students have not been (and cannot be) polled. Today’s students are paying the price for D-1 athletics, when they had no say whatsoever in the vote that increased their fees.
As far as Brian Kenyon goes, I don’t know how old you are Brian, but you come across as someone who is not yet living in the real world, when you say, “with a little imagination, the money can be found.” The bottom line, and you would know this if you had any experience with the way the world actually works, is that it will not be found imaginitively. It will be found exactly as Mike said: by increasing costs for students in the dorms, thereby further distancing the university from its primary mission.
“They seem to want the workers to get the benefits, they use the food services and they should be free to choose, and free to pay the added costs.”
Mike, much like other student fee increases, the group of current students who say they support this $600 increase in fees will not be the ones paying for it. The costs will be borne by the classes that enter the dorms in the next 2-3 years and thereafter. Those students have not been (and cannot be) polled. Today’s students are paying the price for D-1 athletics, when they had no say whatsoever in the vote that increased their fees.
As far as Brian Kenyon goes, I don’t know how old you are Brian, but you come across as someone who is not yet living in the real world, when you say, “with a little imagination, the money can be found.” The bottom line, and you would know this if you had any experience with the way the world actually works, is that it will not be found imaginitively. It will be found exactly as Mike said: by increasing costs for students in the dorms, thereby further distancing the university from its primary mission.
“They seem to want the workers to get the benefits, they use the food services and they should be free to choose, and free to pay the added costs.”
Mike, much like other student fee increases, the group of current students who say they support this $600 increase in fees will not be the ones paying for it. The costs will be borne by the classes that enter the dorms in the next 2-3 years and thereafter. Those students have not been (and cannot be) polled. Today’s students are paying the price for D-1 athletics, when they had no say whatsoever in the vote that increased their fees.
As far as Brian Kenyon goes, I don’t know how old you are Brian, but you come across as someone who is not yet living in the real world, when you say, “with a little imagination, the money can be found.” The bottom line, and you would know this if you had any experience with the way the world actually works, is that it will not be found imaginitively. It will be found exactly as Mike said: by increasing costs for students in the dorms, thereby further distancing the university from its primary mission.
“They seem to want the workers to get the benefits, they use the food services and they should be free to choose, and free to pay the added costs.”
Mike, much like other student fee increases, the group of current students who say they support this $600 increase in fees will not be the ones paying for it. The costs will be borne by the classes that enter the dorms in the next 2-3 years and thereafter. Those students have not been (and cannot be) polled. Today’s students are paying the price for D-1 athletics, when they had no say whatsoever in the vote that increased their fees.
As far as Brian Kenyon goes, I don’t know how old you are Brian, but you come across as someone who is not yet living in the real world, when you say, “with a little imagination, the money can be found.” The bottom line, and you would know this if you had any experience with the way the world actually works, is that it will not be found imaginitively. It will be found exactly as Mike said: by increasing costs for students in the dorms, thereby further distancing the university from its primary mission.
UC Davis bureaucrats making above $100,000 per year
This will cover the $27 million?
UC Davis bureaucrats making above $100,000 per year
This will cover the $27 million?
UC Davis bureaucrats making above $100,000 per year
This will cover the $27 million?
UC Davis bureaucrats making above $100,000 per year
This will cover the $27 million?
Erik, you mention “living wage”…”fair wage” several times. My understanding is that Sodexho adheres to the “living wage” standard. The workers are protesting and seeking to unionize for something like a $1 – $2 an hour pay increase, as well as for greater health benefits.
So I assume you are proposing that they be paid a wage sufficient to live in Davis — something akin to the “universal living wage” concept. That would be far more expensive than anything under discussion here.
Brian: re “with a little imagination, the money can be found.”
I think accountancy is not a profession known for imagination when it is practiced in the public realm. Your imaginative proposal has zero chance of being enacted, as it would have significant impact on the ability of the university to recruit management level employees, among other problems. I agree with Mike: the source of money for any pay increase for the workers will be from the students (and their parents) who pay for dorm housing and on-campus services, plus a small amount from groups who make use of the contracted services when they hold events on campus. Any other proposal is just wishful thinking. It is not unreasonable to make the point that these increased benefits have costs that someone else will have to bear.
Erik, you mention “living wage”…”fair wage” several times. My understanding is that Sodexho adheres to the “living wage” standard. The workers are protesting and seeking to unionize for something like a $1 – $2 an hour pay increase, as well as for greater health benefits.
So I assume you are proposing that they be paid a wage sufficient to live in Davis — something akin to the “universal living wage” concept. That would be far more expensive than anything under discussion here.
Brian: re “with a little imagination, the money can be found.”
I think accountancy is not a profession known for imagination when it is practiced in the public realm. Your imaginative proposal has zero chance of being enacted, as it would have significant impact on the ability of the university to recruit management level employees, among other problems. I agree with Mike: the source of money for any pay increase for the workers will be from the students (and their parents) who pay for dorm housing and on-campus services, plus a small amount from groups who make use of the contracted services when they hold events on campus. Any other proposal is just wishful thinking. It is not unreasonable to make the point that these increased benefits have costs that someone else will have to bear.
Erik, you mention “living wage”…”fair wage” several times. My understanding is that Sodexho adheres to the “living wage” standard. The workers are protesting and seeking to unionize for something like a $1 – $2 an hour pay increase, as well as for greater health benefits.
So I assume you are proposing that they be paid a wage sufficient to live in Davis — something akin to the “universal living wage” concept. That would be far more expensive than anything under discussion here.
Brian: re “with a little imagination, the money can be found.”
I think accountancy is not a profession known for imagination when it is practiced in the public realm. Your imaginative proposal has zero chance of being enacted, as it would have significant impact on the ability of the university to recruit management level employees, among other problems. I agree with Mike: the source of money for any pay increase for the workers will be from the students (and their parents) who pay for dorm housing and on-campus services, plus a small amount from groups who make use of the contracted services when they hold events on campus. Any other proposal is just wishful thinking. It is not unreasonable to make the point that these increased benefits have costs that someone else will have to bear.
Erik, you mention “living wage”…”fair wage” several times. My understanding is that Sodexho adheres to the “living wage” standard. The workers are protesting and seeking to unionize for something like a $1 – $2 an hour pay increase, as well as for greater health benefits.
So I assume you are proposing that they be paid a wage sufficient to live in Davis — something akin to the “universal living wage” concept. That would be far more expensive than anything under discussion here.
Brian: re “with a little imagination, the money can be found.”
I think accountancy is not a profession known for imagination when it is practiced in the public realm. Your imaginative proposal has zero chance of being enacted, as it would have significant impact on the ability of the university to recruit management level employees, among other problems. I agree with Mike: the source of money for any pay increase for the workers will be from the students (and their parents) who pay for dorm housing and on-campus services, plus a small amount from groups who make use of the contracted services when they hold events on campus. Any other proposal is just wishful thinking. It is not unreasonable to make the point that these increased benefits have costs that someone else will have to bear.
It’s not 27 million.
It’s not 27 million.
It’s not 27 million.
It’s not 27 million.
Mr. Shor,
Accountants are part of the problem, implementing the misguided policies of the UC Davis bureaucracy…imagination admittedly being not part of their job description.
Accountants don’t set policy.
You wrote: “these increased benefits have costs that someone else will have to bear…”
Why must the accountants be given orders to balance their books on the backs of students and food service workers?
Is there absolutely no alternative to solving the small, comparatively speaking, budget shortfall that would occur if the food service workers were paid decent wages and provided competitive benefits by UC Davis?
–Brian Kenyon
Mr. Shor,
Accountants are part of the problem, implementing the misguided policies of the UC Davis bureaucracy…imagination admittedly being not part of their job description.
Accountants don’t set policy.
You wrote: “these increased benefits have costs that someone else will have to bear…”
Why must the accountants be given orders to balance their books on the backs of students and food service workers?
Is there absolutely no alternative to solving the small, comparatively speaking, budget shortfall that would occur if the food service workers were paid decent wages and provided competitive benefits by UC Davis?
–Brian Kenyon
Mr. Shor,
Accountants are part of the problem, implementing the misguided policies of the UC Davis bureaucracy…imagination admittedly being not part of their job description.
Accountants don’t set policy.
You wrote: “these increased benefits have costs that someone else will have to bear…”
Why must the accountants be given orders to balance their books on the backs of students and food service workers?
Is there absolutely no alternative to solving the small, comparatively speaking, budget shortfall that would occur if the food service workers were paid decent wages and provided competitive benefits by UC Davis?
–Brian Kenyon
Mr. Shor,
Accountants are part of the problem, implementing the misguided policies of the UC Davis bureaucracy…imagination admittedly being not part of their job description.
Accountants don’t set policy.
You wrote: “these increased benefits have costs that someone else will have to bear…”
Why must the accountants be given orders to balance their books on the backs of students and food service workers?
Is there absolutely no alternative to solving the small, comparatively speaking, budget shortfall that would occur if the food service workers were paid decent wages and provided competitive benefits by UC Davis?
–Brian Kenyon
Here you go. There is more detail available at other sites, but this seems like a reasonable summary. Would you prefer to cut the buy-back of graduate fee increases, reduce instruction, increase fees to non-resident students, or ask the legislature for more funding? Or some other approach?
December 1, 2006
Budget eyes research, instruction
By Dave Jones
UC’s proposed $17 billion budget for 2007-08 includes a $15 million research initiative and $10 million to help make up for previous cuts to instruction, as well as a 5 percent pool for employee compensation increases.
The budget proposal, approved by the Board of Regents on Nov. 16, provides for enrollment growth of 2.5 percent, or 5,340 full-time equivalent students.
The $17 billion spending plan includes money from all sources for all activities except the UC-managed national laboratories. UC is asking for state funding of $3.3 billion, an increase of $247.9 million, or 8.1 percent, over 2006-07.
The proposal is based on the university’s compact with Gov. Schwarzenegger, an agreement that outlines state funding expectations and UC accountability expectations over a multiyear period. The proposal includes state investments beyond the compact.
“This is a budget that continues to provide access to the University of California for all eligible students and also makes strategic investments to strengthen our contribution to the state’s economy, health and quality of life,” President Robert Dynes said.
“Universities need to be in the business not just of research and development, but research, development, and delivery that translates knowledge into societal benefit,” he added. “This budget invests in efforts to continue expanding the university’s ability to deliver new contributions to the people of California.”
Student fees on a systemwide basis remain an open question. Campus-based fees ($1,435 for UC Davis undergraduates in 2006-07), however, are subject to automatic adjustments for inflation.
The Board of Regents raised systemwide fees by 5 percent to 10 percent for 2006-07, but the state covered the cost — in effect “buying out” the increases.
UC officials said they do not know if the state will have sufficient resources for a buyout in 2007-08. As a result, the regents withheld action on student fees until after Schwarzenegger unveils his 2007-08 budget in January; the regents’ budget proposal assumes $71 million in funding from either student fees or state income, or about 10 percent more than this year.
Kelly Ratliff, associate vice chancellor for budget resource management at UC Davis, said budget planning information will be distributed to the campus after the governor presents his budget next month. He is due to issue a revised proposal in May, and then the Legislature and governor are supposed to act by July 1.
Graduate student support
All students pay fees, but only nonresidents pay tuition. Under the proposed budget, nonresident undergraduates would pay an extra $900 tuition, or 5 percent, in 2007-08. Tuition would be frozen for graduate academic students for the third year in a row, as part of the university’s effort to attract the most talented graduate students from around the world.
In proposing a $15 million research initiative, UC officials are asking campuses to invest at least 50 percent to 60 percent of that money to help support all graduate students, resident and nonresident, as research assistants.
For the 2006-07 academic year, UC Davis Provost Virginia Hinshaw allocated $2.5 million for a 25 percent “buy-down” of fees and tuition for graduate student researchers paid with external or nonuniversity funds. Ratliff said the provost will continue the buy-down in 2007-08.
The UC budget proposal’s $10 million in extra funding for student instruction would help restore money that was cut in the irst part of the decade. This would be the third increment of funding in a three-year period aimed at improving the student-faculty ratio.
The proposed 5 percent pool for faculty and staff compensation increases would cover such categories as merit-based and equity-based salary increases, and health and welfare benefit cost increases. “This increase is intended to begin closing the market pay gap affecting many UC faculty and staff,” a news release stated.
Retirement plan funding
UC is asking the state for $60 million for the first phase of reinstating employer contributions to the UC Retirement Plan. Employee members also are due to start making contributions July 1, 2007. A contribution “holiday” has been in effect for 16 years, because earnings on the plan’s reserve kept the plan sufficiently funded.
Now, however, university officials say the plan will become underfunded within the next several years. Therefore, the regents decided that renewed contributions are necessary, eventually to a maximum 16 percent, split between the university and plan members. The split has not been decided, nor have the starting contributions.
Collective bargaining is under way with UC unions regarding the employee contributions. In the first year, UC is proposing to simply redirect the 2 percent that most employees are now required to put into individual defined contribution plans. Under the UC proposal, that 2 percent would instead go into the retirement plan.
Here you go. There is more detail available at other sites, but this seems like a reasonable summary. Would you prefer to cut the buy-back of graduate fee increases, reduce instruction, increase fees to non-resident students, or ask the legislature for more funding? Or some other approach?
December 1, 2006
Budget eyes research, instruction
By Dave Jones
UC’s proposed $17 billion budget for 2007-08 includes a $15 million research initiative and $10 million to help make up for previous cuts to instruction, as well as a 5 percent pool for employee compensation increases.
The budget proposal, approved by the Board of Regents on Nov. 16, provides for enrollment growth of 2.5 percent, or 5,340 full-time equivalent students.
The $17 billion spending plan includes money from all sources for all activities except the UC-managed national laboratories. UC is asking for state funding of $3.3 billion, an increase of $247.9 million, or 8.1 percent, over 2006-07.
The proposal is based on the university’s compact with Gov. Schwarzenegger, an agreement that outlines state funding expectations and UC accountability expectations over a multiyear period. The proposal includes state investments beyond the compact.
“This is a budget that continues to provide access to the University of California for all eligible students and also makes strategic investments to strengthen our contribution to the state’s economy, health and quality of life,” President Robert Dynes said.
“Universities need to be in the business not just of research and development, but research, development, and delivery that translates knowledge into societal benefit,” he added. “This budget invests in efforts to continue expanding the university’s ability to deliver new contributions to the people of California.”
Student fees on a systemwide basis remain an open question. Campus-based fees ($1,435 for UC Davis undergraduates in 2006-07), however, are subject to automatic adjustments for inflation.
The Board of Regents raised systemwide fees by 5 percent to 10 percent for 2006-07, but the state covered the cost — in effect “buying out” the increases.
UC officials said they do not know if the state will have sufficient resources for a buyout in 2007-08. As a result, the regents withheld action on student fees until after Schwarzenegger unveils his 2007-08 budget in January; the regents’ budget proposal assumes $71 million in funding from either student fees or state income, or about 10 percent more than this year.
Kelly Ratliff, associate vice chancellor for budget resource management at UC Davis, said budget planning information will be distributed to the campus after the governor presents his budget next month. He is due to issue a revised proposal in May, and then the Legislature and governor are supposed to act by July 1.
Graduate student support
All students pay fees, but only nonresidents pay tuition. Under the proposed budget, nonresident undergraduates would pay an extra $900 tuition, or 5 percent, in 2007-08. Tuition would be frozen for graduate academic students for the third year in a row, as part of the university’s effort to attract the most talented graduate students from around the world.
In proposing a $15 million research initiative, UC officials are asking campuses to invest at least 50 percent to 60 percent of that money to help support all graduate students, resident and nonresident, as research assistants.
For the 2006-07 academic year, UC Davis Provost Virginia Hinshaw allocated $2.5 million for a 25 percent “buy-down” of fees and tuition for graduate student researchers paid with external or nonuniversity funds. Ratliff said the provost will continue the buy-down in 2007-08.
The UC budget proposal’s $10 million in extra funding for student instruction would help restore money that was cut in the irst part of the decade. This would be the third increment of funding in a three-year period aimed at improving the student-faculty ratio.
The proposed 5 percent pool for faculty and staff compensation increases would cover such categories as merit-based and equity-based salary increases, and health and welfare benefit cost increases. “This increase is intended to begin closing the market pay gap affecting many UC faculty and staff,” a news release stated.
Retirement plan funding
UC is asking the state for $60 million for the first phase of reinstating employer contributions to the UC Retirement Plan. Employee members also are due to start making contributions July 1, 2007. A contribution “holiday” has been in effect for 16 years, because earnings on the plan’s reserve kept the plan sufficiently funded.
Now, however, university officials say the plan will become underfunded within the next several years. Therefore, the regents decided that renewed contributions are necessary, eventually to a maximum 16 percent, split between the university and plan members. The split has not been decided, nor have the starting contributions.
Collective bargaining is under way with UC unions regarding the employee contributions. In the first year, UC is proposing to simply redirect the 2 percent that most employees are now required to put into individual defined contribution plans. Under the UC proposal, that 2 percent would instead go into the retirement plan.
Here you go. There is more detail available at other sites, but this seems like a reasonable summary. Would you prefer to cut the buy-back of graduate fee increases, reduce instruction, increase fees to non-resident students, or ask the legislature for more funding? Or some other approach?
December 1, 2006
Budget eyes research, instruction
By Dave Jones
UC’s proposed $17 billion budget for 2007-08 includes a $15 million research initiative and $10 million to help make up for previous cuts to instruction, as well as a 5 percent pool for employee compensation increases.
The budget proposal, approved by the Board of Regents on Nov. 16, provides for enrollment growth of 2.5 percent, or 5,340 full-time equivalent students.
The $17 billion spending plan includes money from all sources for all activities except the UC-managed national laboratories. UC is asking for state funding of $3.3 billion, an increase of $247.9 million, or 8.1 percent, over 2006-07.
The proposal is based on the university’s compact with Gov. Schwarzenegger, an agreement that outlines state funding expectations and UC accountability expectations over a multiyear period. The proposal includes state investments beyond the compact.
“This is a budget that continues to provide access to the University of California for all eligible students and also makes strategic investments to strengthen our contribution to the state’s economy, health and quality of life,” President Robert Dynes said.
“Universities need to be in the business not just of research and development, but research, development, and delivery that translates knowledge into societal benefit,” he added. “This budget invests in efforts to continue expanding the university’s ability to deliver new contributions to the people of California.”
Student fees on a systemwide basis remain an open question. Campus-based fees ($1,435 for UC Davis undergraduates in 2006-07), however, are subject to automatic adjustments for inflation.
The Board of Regents raised systemwide fees by 5 percent to 10 percent for 2006-07, but the state covered the cost — in effect “buying out” the increases.
UC officials said they do not know if the state will have sufficient resources for a buyout in 2007-08. As a result, the regents withheld action on student fees until after Schwarzenegger unveils his 2007-08 budget in January; the regents’ budget proposal assumes $71 million in funding from either student fees or state income, or about 10 percent more than this year.
Kelly Ratliff, associate vice chancellor for budget resource management at UC Davis, said budget planning information will be distributed to the campus after the governor presents his budget next month. He is due to issue a revised proposal in May, and then the Legislature and governor are supposed to act by July 1.
Graduate student support
All students pay fees, but only nonresidents pay tuition. Under the proposed budget, nonresident undergraduates would pay an extra $900 tuition, or 5 percent, in 2007-08. Tuition would be frozen for graduate academic students for the third year in a row, as part of the university’s effort to attract the most talented graduate students from around the world.
In proposing a $15 million research initiative, UC officials are asking campuses to invest at least 50 percent to 60 percent of that money to help support all graduate students, resident and nonresident, as research assistants.
For the 2006-07 academic year, UC Davis Provost Virginia Hinshaw allocated $2.5 million for a 25 percent “buy-down” of fees and tuition for graduate student researchers paid with external or nonuniversity funds. Ratliff said the provost will continue the buy-down in 2007-08.
The UC budget proposal’s $10 million in extra funding for student instruction would help restore money that was cut in the irst part of the decade. This would be the third increment of funding in a three-year period aimed at improving the student-faculty ratio.
The proposed 5 percent pool for faculty and staff compensation increases would cover such categories as merit-based and equity-based salary increases, and health and welfare benefit cost increases. “This increase is intended to begin closing the market pay gap affecting many UC faculty and staff,” a news release stated.
Retirement plan funding
UC is asking the state for $60 million for the first phase of reinstating employer contributions to the UC Retirement Plan. Employee members also are due to start making contributions July 1, 2007. A contribution “holiday” has been in effect for 16 years, because earnings on the plan’s reserve kept the plan sufficiently funded.
Now, however, university officials say the plan will become underfunded within the next several years. Therefore, the regents decided that renewed contributions are necessary, eventually to a maximum 16 percent, split between the university and plan members. The split has not been decided, nor have the starting contributions.
Collective bargaining is under way with UC unions regarding the employee contributions. In the first year, UC is proposing to simply redirect the 2 percent that most employees are now required to put into individual defined contribution plans. Under the UC proposal, that 2 percent would instead go into the retirement plan.
Here you go. There is more detail available at other sites, but this seems like a reasonable summary. Would you prefer to cut the buy-back of graduate fee increases, reduce instruction, increase fees to non-resident students, or ask the legislature for more funding? Or some other approach?
December 1, 2006
Budget eyes research, instruction
By Dave Jones
UC’s proposed $17 billion budget for 2007-08 includes a $15 million research initiative and $10 million to help make up for previous cuts to instruction, as well as a 5 percent pool for employee compensation increases.
The budget proposal, approved by the Board of Regents on Nov. 16, provides for enrollment growth of 2.5 percent, or 5,340 full-time equivalent students.
The $17 billion spending plan includes money from all sources for all activities except the UC-managed national laboratories. UC is asking for state funding of $3.3 billion, an increase of $247.9 million, or 8.1 percent, over 2006-07.
The proposal is based on the university’s compact with Gov. Schwarzenegger, an agreement that outlines state funding expectations and UC accountability expectations over a multiyear period. The proposal includes state investments beyond the compact.
“This is a budget that continues to provide access to the University of California for all eligible students and also makes strategic investments to strengthen our contribution to the state’s economy, health and quality of life,” President Robert Dynes said.
“Universities need to be in the business not just of research and development, but research, development, and delivery that translates knowledge into societal benefit,” he added. “This budget invests in efforts to continue expanding the university’s ability to deliver new contributions to the people of California.”
Student fees on a systemwide basis remain an open question. Campus-based fees ($1,435 for UC Davis undergraduates in 2006-07), however, are subject to automatic adjustments for inflation.
The Board of Regents raised systemwide fees by 5 percent to 10 percent for 2006-07, but the state covered the cost — in effect “buying out” the increases.
UC officials said they do not know if the state will have sufficient resources for a buyout in 2007-08. As a result, the regents withheld action on student fees until after Schwarzenegger unveils his 2007-08 budget in January; the regents’ budget proposal assumes $71 million in funding from either student fees or state income, or about 10 percent more than this year.
Kelly Ratliff, associate vice chancellor for budget resource management at UC Davis, said budget planning information will be distributed to the campus after the governor presents his budget next month. He is due to issue a revised proposal in May, and then the Legislature and governor are supposed to act by July 1.
Graduate student support
All students pay fees, but only nonresidents pay tuition. Under the proposed budget, nonresident undergraduates would pay an extra $900 tuition, or 5 percent, in 2007-08. Tuition would be frozen for graduate academic students for the third year in a row, as part of the university’s effort to attract the most talented graduate students from around the world.
In proposing a $15 million research initiative, UC officials are asking campuses to invest at least 50 percent to 60 percent of that money to help support all graduate students, resident and nonresident, as research assistants.
For the 2006-07 academic year, UC Davis Provost Virginia Hinshaw allocated $2.5 million for a 25 percent “buy-down” of fees and tuition for graduate student researchers paid with external or nonuniversity funds. Ratliff said the provost will continue the buy-down in 2007-08.
The UC budget proposal’s $10 million in extra funding for student instruction would help restore money that was cut in the irst part of the decade. This would be the third increment of funding in a three-year period aimed at improving the student-faculty ratio.
The proposed 5 percent pool for faculty and staff compensation increases would cover such categories as merit-based and equity-based salary increases, and health and welfare benefit cost increases. “This increase is intended to begin closing the market pay gap affecting many UC faculty and staff,” a news release stated.
Retirement plan funding
UC is asking the state for $60 million for the first phase of reinstating employer contributions to the UC Retirement Plan. Employee members also are due to start making contributions July 1, 2007. A contribution “holiday” has been in effect for 16 years, because earnings on the plan’s reserve kept the plan sufficiently funded.
Now, however, university officials say the plan will become underfunded within the next several years. Therefore, the regents decided that renewed contributions are necessary, eventually to a maximum 16 percent, split between the university and plan members. The split has not been decided, nor have the starting contributions.
Collective bargaining is under way with UC unions regarding the employee contributions. In the first year, UC is proposing to simply redirect the 2 percent that most employees are now required to put into individual defined contribution plans. Under the UC proposal, that 2 percent would instead go into the retirement plan.
And here is more updated info:
http://www.news.ucdavis.edu/special_reports/budget/
And here is more updated info:
http://www.news.ucdavis.edu/special_reports/budget/
And here is more updated info:
http://www.news.ucdavis.edu/special_reports/budget/
And here is more updated info:
http://www.news.ucdavis.edu/special_reports/budget/