Comments on: Aftermath of the UC Regents 32% Fee Increase http://oehlberg.com/blog/2009/11/23/aftermath-of-the-uc-regents-32-fee-increase/ It's not a big truck Tue, 13 Jul 2010 04:31:06 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Mark http://oehlberg.com/blog/2009/11/23/aftermath-of-the-uc-regents-32-fee-increase/comment-page-1/#comment-525 Mark Tue, 24 Nov 2009 21:00:59 +0000 http://oehlberg.com/blog/?p=841#comment-525 I should also note for comparison purposes: "The increased fees are expected to generate $505 million" Keep that in mind when looking at the budget information. from: http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/news/article/22415 I should also note for comparison purposes: “The increased fees are expected to generate $505 million”
Keep that in mind when looking at the budget information.

from: http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/news/article/22415

]]> By: Mark http://oehlberg.com/blog/2009/11/23/aftermath-of-the-uc-regents-32-fee-increase/comment-page-1/#comment-524 Mark Tue, 24 Nov 2009 20:05:02 +0000 http://oehlberg.com/blog/?p=841#comment-524 Also of note: The 8/09 budget has a large section on wage disparities. It outlines how the University is not paying people an amount that is appropriate for their level in the private sector. The 08 budget was really worried that the average cost of a manager in charge of x number of people in the private sector is paid a certain amount, and the university need to hit that number. This disparity between public and private salaries was extremely important to the administration, and every hire that is made in the September Regents meeting makes sure to note the private HR firm Mercer's average salary for an equivalent position in the private sector. Since nobody can get their hands on the actual data that is used by mercer to generate these numbers, it's a trade secret, you are left to trust both the administration and the private HR firm Mercer to set appropriate salary levels for the top brass. Since the Hr firm is being paid by the Regents and there is no oversight of this, an obvious conflict of interest arises along with a general distrust of the integrity of the administration. Mercer filed reports to the Regents in 2005 (see here:<a href="http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/news/compensation/mercerstudies.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/news/compensation/mercerstudies.html</a>). In it, Mercer compared our administrative salaries to other Universities including Stanford, Yale and Harvard. The reasoning behind using these Universities as a measuring tool is that in order for the UC to achieve a higher academic standard, they need to recruit and maintain top executive talent. The only way to do that is to pay them more. Of course the only way to pay them more is to increase fees and fire staff. A close look at any Regent's meeting minutes shows a laundry list of employees being hired for over $100,000 a year, with wage comparisons priced by Mercer. Looking through the Mercer report shows that anyone making over $160,000 has a normal pay scale, while those above it can get set at whatever sky high rate the Regents decide. Those salaries shouldn't have an upper limit. Here is a fun thing to do: Go to the Regent's meeting minutes page and then click on the minutes for any meeting of the Committee on Compensation. Flip through it to see who the Regents approve high salaries and bonuses to. Mercer is used throughout to compare the hire to whatever Mercer thinks is the industry standard. Here is the website: http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/regents/minutes/welcome.html Also of note: The 8/09 budget has a large section on wage disparities. It outlines how the University is not paying people an amount that is appropriate for their level in the private sector. The 08 budget was really worried that the average cost of a manager in charge of x number of people in the private sector is paid a certain amount, and the university need to hit that number. This disparity between public and private salaries was extremely important to the administration, and every hire that is made in the September Regents meeting makes sure to note the private HR firm Mercer’s average salary for an equivalent position in the private sector. Since nobody can get their hands on the actual data that is used by mercer to generate these numbers, it’s a trade secret, you are left to trust both the administration and the private HR firm Mercer to set appropriate salary levels for the top brass. Since the Hr firm is being paid by the Regents and there is no oversight of this, an obvious conflict of interest arises along with a general distrust of the integrity of the administration.

Mercer filed reports to the Regents in 2005 (see here:http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/news/compensation/mercerstudies.html). In it, Mercer compared our administrative salaries to other Universities including Stanford, Yale and Harvard. The reasoning behind using these Universities as a measuring tool is that in order for the UC to achieve a higher academic standard, they need to recruit and maintain top executive talent. The only way to do that is to pay them more. Of course the only way to pay them more is to increase fees and fire staff.

A close look at any Regent’s meeting minutes shows a laundry list of employees being hired for over $100,000 a year, with wage comparisons priced by Mercer. Looking through the Mercer report shows that anyone making over $160,000 has a normal pay scale, while those above it can get set at whatever sky high rate the Regents decide. Those salaries shouldn’t have an upper limit.

Here is a fun thing to do: Go to the Regent’s meeting minutes page and then click on the minutes for any meeting of the Committee on Compensation. Flip through it to see who the Regents approve high salaries and bonuses to. Mercer is used throughout to compare the hire to whatever Mercer thinks is the industry standard. Here is the website:
http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu/regents/minutes/welcome.html

]]> By: Ben http://oehlberg.com/blog/2009/11/23/aftermath-of-the-uc-regents-32-fee-increase/comment-page-1/#comment-522 Ben Tue, 24 Nov 2009 18:53:02 +0000 http://oehlberg.com/blog/?p=841#comment-522 What a mess. 1) the American dream is no longer just for private business tycoons. 2) the American dream now means writing your own bonus check. What a mess.
1) the American dream is no longer just for private business tycoons.
2) the American dream now means writing your own bonus check.

]]>