The Edmonton Journal carries two contrasting stories:
1. Teachers' union, province in secret talks to explore cap on work hours
2. U of A faces staff cuts, larger classes
In the first case, teachers are negotiating a new contract that might see the introduction of a 30-hour work week, in exchange for a 3-year salary deal like the nurses (0%, 2%, 4%). The Journal reports ATA spokesman Jonathan Teghtmeyer as saying: “If we’re going to talk about salaries and cost certainty, labour peace and workforce stability, then we need to talk about workload as well.”
In the second case, there is no such talk of workloads, just layoffs and increased class sizes. It's a curious contrast. Interestingly, NASA came closest to negotiating "less work for less pay" with their paid days off, although they too are getting hit hard by the budget cuts.
The bottom line is, universities and university staff do not have the ear (or the short and curlies) of government to anything like the degree that the nurses and teachers unions do, nor do we have much public sympathy or public leverage (even if we could go on strike, it would not impact the average Albertan in any meaningful way).
A bold move would be to calculate the real-dollar decrease in the government grant to the university, and decrease our enrolment by the same proportion (by the simple expedient of raising entrance standards). That might get some public attention — some people might applaud.
Posts
Student preferences for tertiary online courses
-
The latest article from our Transition Study has been published in the American
Journal of Distance Education. I co-authored the article, titled Student
Pe...
1 week ago
I entirely agree, and I have seen it done at my previous institution (San Diego State University). Facing skyrocketing enrolment and budget cuts, the president declared the campus "impacted", and drastically raised admission standards -- and a lot of good that did to the unievrsity.
ReplyDeletenor do we have much public sympathy… A bold move would be to calculate the real-dollar decrease in the government grant to the university, and decrease our enrolment by the same proportion… some people might applaud.
ReplyDeleteNot the ones that matter.
I don't blame the public for their lack of sympathy. Look at how much money has gone into the spiffy new buildings the President' salary and such. Act like a Private institution and people will treat you like one.
ReplyDelete@Anon 9:49: good point about public optics.
ReplyDeleteThe Arts Squared site has posted a terrific infographic that details the ridiculous amount of our budget that is directed to administration.
It's difficult to determine the justification for this given the lack of transparency re. resource allocations across campus. Which expenditures are integral to day-to-day operations? Which are folly projects? Austerity measures should begin at the top both in terms of salaries and overall spending. For a public institution, there seems to be little accountability by either the administration or the BoG.
If we've reached the point where programs may be closed and faculty positions cut then it's also time to downsize the number of AVPs (if not VPs!!). They can return to their departments at their previous salaries. If they have no desire to return to the classroom then they can seek administrative positions elsewhere. Either way it should save us a few bucks and/or add bodies to the front of the lecture hall thereby supporting the fundamental objective of the U: educating students.
The Arts Squared site has posted a terrific infographic that details the ridiculous amount of our budget that is directed to administration.
ReplyDeleteActually, that's not what the pie chart shows. It simply indicates who does the spending. My understanding is that some money spent by faculties "comes from" central. Presumably that money is accounted to "central" in such a distribution.
Now, don't get me wrong, I'm certainly not defending how central is running the university's finances. But you can't automatically assume that what is spent by, say, the Provost's office is "administration". And for that matter, surely a certain amount of the budgets of the faculties is spent on what would normatively be described as "administrative" functions.
So what we need is information not on who does the university's spending, but what the money gets spent on.
Agreed.
ReplyDeleteI smell a financial emergency brewing. After 3 years of 0% increases and inflation running high, we are pretty much cut to the bone.
ReplyDeleteMy projection goes as follows: 1) financial emergency is declared by the University in 2012, 2) whole programs are cut, 3) "older" professors are told to leave, 4) further NASA job loses, 5) librarian cuts, 6) cancellation of the 2% increase for July, 7) wage rollbacks and/or furloughs forced on AASUA and NASA, 8) an increase in the "overhead" on research grants and 9) a self-inflicted symbolic salary reduction for the President, Provost, and VPs.
I could be wrong on some of the points but unlikely all of them.
Keyser, I don't know if you misinterpreted my question or the pie chart. There is a clear designation of how much "direct" funding is allocated to faculties vs. the cost of "administering" the university overall. I was not suggesting that the budgets of each VP office is only relegated to that particular office.
ReplyDeleteMy central concern is in the second paragraph of my comment: due to lack of transparency we have very little understanding of precisely how money is spent or if it is spent wisely. Moreover, there has been a remarkable increase in the discrepancy between direct funding to faculties vs. allocation to broader administrative concerns. One repeated refrain from UHall focuses on increased utility costs, infrastructural issues, etc. It's all very vague. Perhaps an economist can jump in and explain whether or not these issues are commensurate with the increased admin. budget.
Given the sacrifices that are now demanded of staff, students and faculty there should be far greater public accountability of exactly *how* scarce dollars are being spent. And weren't we supposed to receive such budget transparency in exchange for the furlough days?
I find it difficult to imagine that there is absolutely no fat to be trimmed from the top. But I could very well be wrong. However, it will be difficult to win public (or even campus-wide) sympathy without some verification of this.
As Anon@9:49 points out, all the public sees are bright shiny new buildings, million dollar house purchases, etc. and media reports from our Provost that faculty salaries are to blame for many of our woes.
Further to Keyser Söze 02:18 PM, I suspect that administration, though funded from the provincial base operating grant, administers the full $1.7 billion budget/university. If so, the ratio is misleading.
ReplyDeleteanon at 3:18pm...how can they declare financial exigency when there is spending on new infrastructure all around us?
ReplyDeleteFrom CAUT:
http://www.caut.ca/pages.asp?lang=1&page=274
"A bona fide financial exigency should only arise through accounting for all the institution’s resources, not just the academic or salary budget."
It might be a way for Indira to save face and blame it all ont he provincial government and gas prices,rather than her own grand goals.
ReplyDeleteFor those unaware, a Financial Emergency is defined in our collective agreement (Article 33 - see AASUA website):
ReplyDeleteFinancial emergency means a condition in which the continued existence of the University of Alberta is placed in jeopardy by a deficit which has occurred or is predicted and projections show continuing deficits.
Well, a deficit has occurred (or did it really?), projections show continuing deficits. Hmmm.... Anyone read what happens when such an emergency occurs? We're all vulnerable but I'm rather sure they'd be "selective" in making the layoffs.
Anon @ 11:09 am: A financial emergency is a real possibility, but it would be equivalent to administration falling on its sword — the implications are so dire that no senior administrator should expect to keep their job afterwards.
DeleteBut if you want to lose some sleep, do have a read of Article 33 of the Faculty Agreement (Financial Emergency). That said, read Article 32 first (Academic Reorganization), because that will occur first. There are some safeguards for jobs, but it's still pretty dire. Remember, though, that Academic Reorganization is intended to occur for academic reasons, not simply budgetary, and must be initiated by faculty councils.