The following testimony was given by clerical workers to the Board of Regents on June 14, 2010.
Over the past months there has been much discussion about how to cut costs at the U. One of the methods the U has embraced is mandatory furloughs. But U of M AFSCME knows that this method will push many of the lower paid workers at the U into financial crisis. So, in a good faith effort to partner with the University and help solve its financial problems, AFSCME proposed a tried and true solution that was a huge success in both Hennepin County and the City of Minneapolis. Instead of mandatory furloughs a voluntary leave of absence program was implemented that allowed staff to choose whether or not to take unpaid leave. Those who could afford to take days off without pay did so while those who are the most vulnerable were not forced into financial crisis. The goals for financial savings were more than met in both Hennepin County and the City of Minneapolis.
So, in order to show that this plan would enable the U to meet its goal of $12M in savings, AFSCME prepared a short survey asking University employees if they would volunteer to take unpaid days off and if so, how many. The survey was e-mailed to all 19,000 University employees. The survey responses indicate that voluntary furloughs would reap savings in the same neighborhood as the pay cuts and mandatory furloughs currently being pursued by the administration. In addition, voluntary furloughs are flexible, cost effective and easy for departments to administer. They allow employees to tailor a contribution that fits best with their personal lives and their families' needs. After carefully studying the data to get a better picture of the breakdown by employee group, it is clear that this option warrants immediate and serious consideration as an option for addressing the University's budget problems.
When we go to the legislature and talk to our representatives about our solutions to the U's financial problems they tell us our ideas are good and our proposals are reasonable and they ask us if we have talked to the Regents. After all they say, they are the ones who are charged with protecting the U's land grant mission, they are the ones who make the decisions. We respond that we've offered solutions, but you refuse to meet with us. The state requested that you explore voluntary furloughs, but you ignored that request too. Instead, you protect the leadership of this University who is not interested in doing what's best for the students or for the staff or for the State of MN. They are only interested in protecting their own self-interest and their exorbitant salaries which are comparable to the salaries of CEO's in the private sector-not that of a land grant University.
Today I issue a challenge to the Regents
A challenge to protect the University's land grant mission by sitting down with and talking to the working people this University was intended to serve
A challenge to discuss and carefully consider the recommendations of MN law makers, that of voluntary furloughs.
A challenge to start addressing the U's budget problems by cutting the real waste at the U, the exorbitant salaries of the people at the top.
We can only count on the University administration to act in their best interest, so it is your responsibility to step and protect the University's original land grant mission of providing a quality, affordable, higher education to the citizens of the State of MN.
I would like to thank the Board of Regents for the opportunity to speak about the University's proposed budget. My name is Mary Lou Middleton. I am a 26-year University employee and the vice president of AFSCME Local 3800, representing clerical workers.
In January we learned of the U's plan to implement 10 mandatory furlough days for all staff. We talked to our members to find out how mandatory furloughs would affect them and many told us they simply could not afford any unpaid days, that losing pay over the holidays would be extremely difficult, and that many were already having difficulty paying their bills. We launched two campaigns, one against mandatory furloughs and one to highlight that those making more money could and should afford larger pay cuts. Subsequently the U reduced the number of unpaid days from ten to three and senior administrators took an additional 1.15% decrease in pay, bringing their total decrease in pay to 2.3%.
The six Guiding Budget principles that the University utilizes in forming strategies and making decisions related to short and long term budget planning includes two principles that I would like to speak to:
# 2. Compensate, support, and retain talented faculty and staff.
# 7. Apply one-time or temporary resources to reduce the immediate impact of substantial state budget reductions on students and employees.
Guiding Budget Principle # 2 speaks to compensating, supporting, and retaining talented staff. I'd like to think all staff is talented and worthy of such treatment. Clerical workers deserve their pay increases. FURLOUGHS, unfortunately, ARE A SALARY CUT.
In contract negotiations, we negotiated a 2% cost of living increase effective July 1, 2010 in lieu of TWO step increases. The U's position is that our cost of living increase more than offsets loss of income from 3 unpaid furlough days. What they fail to mention is that we agreed to forego two step increases totaling 4% to help solve the U's budget problem. Our cost of living increase was negotiated in good faith and must not be used as a public relations manipulation to justify forced furloughs. Mandatory furloughs are in contradiction of Guiding Budget Principle #2.
Guiding Budget Principle #7 speaks to applying ONE-TIME or TEMPORARY resources to reduce the impact of the budget on students and employees. I would like to emphasis that any pay cuts including furloughs-whether voluntary or not-MUST BE temporary and NOT become the norm in the future!
Local 3800 supports other viable options to realize the needed savings. These options include: 1) Voluntary furloughs so that those who can't afford them would not be forced to take them, 2) Sliding scale pay cuts, again, to not negatively impact the lowest paid workers at the U, and 3) Further pay cuts to those at the top who can afford the paycuts more. We also support other options that don't negatively impact those at the bottom of the pay scale.
Thank you.
I would like to thank the Board of Regents for the opportunity to speak to you today. My name is Cherrene Horazuk and I have worked at the University of Minnesota for 6 years. I am the Chief Steward of AFSCME 3800.
At last year's hearing, we called for equity and transparency in budget cuts and specifically called upon the Board of Regents to adopt a policy of equity in layoffs similar to the state statute 43A.046, which reads, "In order to maximize delivery of services to the public, if layoffs of state employees are necessary, each agency...must reduce at least the same percentage of management and supervisory personnel as line and support personnel."
We called upon you to adopt this policy because we have witnessed years of Administration rhetoric of "sharing the pain," and "equity amongst employee groups". Yet, we have seen the budget balanced on our backs and the backs of students, as tuition goes up and services are decreased. Because of those experiences, we called upon you, the Board of Regents, to hold the Administration accountable.
Since then, what has happened? Last winter, we requested data on the number of layoffs and non-renewals by employee group. We found that from October 2008 to October of 09, 4.3% of clerical workers lost our jobs while only 0.43% of Academic Administrative positions were cut. Clerical workers lost 10 times more jobs than Academic Administrators, even though there are more administrative positions and the average clerical wage is $39,000 while that of administrators is $81,000. Yet, it is our jobs - the frontline staff who help students navigate the University, who help faculty carry out their important work, who are the backbone of University departments - it is our jobs that are eliminated.
Since last summer, many long-term clerical workers have been laid off. In at least two cases, clerical workers with more than 30 years of University experience were laid off and then told that they weren't qualified for other clerical jobs in their same department. Their departments couldn't afford to pay their outrageous $48,000 salaries (after 30 years), but managed to find money to hire new senior administrators making 6-figure salaries.
We are laid off, yet our work remains and is divided up amongst a smaller group of clerical staff. We are working harder, and are dealing with greater stress as we attempt to get the work done. I frequently get calls from members dealing with stress-related health problems, including one member who suffered an aneurysm and nearly died after she was given her laid-off co-worker's duties and was then told that she would also need to take on work that her supervisor didn't want to do.
The Administration talks about equity. Yet, when times were good, we didn't benefit equally. Administrator salaries soared, while ours didn't even keep up with the cost of living. Now, the administration states "we are all in this together - all employee groups need to sacrifice equally". Well, over the past year and a half, clerical workers have sacrificed. 36% fewer AFSCME members are taking classes since you instituted 10-25% cuts in the regents scholarship program. Clerical workers gave up two years of step increases (or 4%) in order to help the University deal with budget cuts. Over the past year and a half, 4.3% of our members have lost their jobs, compared to only 0.43% of academic administrators. Clearly, clerical workers and other front-line staff have made our sacrifice, and should not be asked, much less mandated, to sacrifice any more. It's time the University eliminate many of these bloated administrative positions and their six-figure salaries. In the name of real equity and long-term budget savings, it's time for the University Board of Regents to step up and institute real cuts at the top.
Thank you to the Board of Regents for the opportunity to speak today, however I feel that it is also sorrowful that it has come to this.
My name is Kelly Alghamdi Zimmerschied and I am a 9 year employee of the U. I am a proud AFSCME Member, as well as the mother of a college-aged student.
What one thing affects all that we do in our daily lives? Our Employer.... The University is a public employer, and as such, the people of the state of MN, and the employees of this institution have a right to the same transparency that one would expect from any institution that:
1. Teaches Our Families
2. Employs Thousands of People
3. Is a Land Grant Institution
4. And has agreements/ ties with a vast number of institutions across the world.
This has not occurred in several areas, even at some of the most basic levels.
In our daily home lives and household budgeting, we collect data, we analyze, we plan, we move forward. No longer can the lowest paid workers and students of the university do this because we are constantly bombarded with changes to our educational and financial lives. Less than a single %(percent) change in income or expenses can create real hardship for us. Let's face it; there are many that just can't stretch any more. Please explain why those making over 200K cannot afford larger cuts when the cuts to pay and future insurance increases will put the lowest paid and most vulnerable at a critical risk?
Administration has made several devastating decisions (furloughs, layoffs, pay cuts, tuition hikes) without providing the information to prove that every other avenue has been exhausted, especially when alternative ideas have been placed forward for consideration. "We are not interested" is not a method of communication that answers, nor explains with transparency of any kind.
Much to the dismay of many, the U has continued to cut positions and raise tuition, without really bringing forth the level of transparency necessary to justify their actions. It has created nothing short of the highest levels of animosity that could only be resolved or alleviated by exercising the highest standards of transparency and willingness to discuss, not dictate, and to work with, not against.
AFSCME either individually or as part of group, has brought forward ideas for budget savings that protect jobs. Recently, we put forward voluntary furloughs as opposed to a mandatory furlough that will put so many in crisis. It would allow the great people of our university the choice about which level they can contribute to the future well-being of our land grant institution. The U knows that we are all great contributors. Explain "why" the U has the need to take the mandatory route when we have data that shows voluntary furloughs are a valid option?
AFSCME agreed, in good faith, to our last contract, with nothing less than the desire to better the livelihood of our members, and to do the right thing for the U as a whole, yet layoffs are rampant for AFSCME workers. This can not continue until there is proof that layoffs are equal amongst all employee groups.
Why was the U not fully ready for the 27th pay period? What reasoning could it have for what is easily interpreted as a lack of fiduciary planning? And if the U was not able to plan for an event 11 years in the making, how can we trust the current rationale for layoffs and furloughs?
Now is the time that the University Board of Regents needs to truly hold the Administration accountable.
Providing information is not always an easy task, but it is the right thing to do. Keeping it transparent is PRICELESS.
The university administrators are not explaining why they have made the decisions that they have. They have not come forward with the necessary detailed level of transparent information, financial or otherwise that is critical to the sustainability of not only current students, staff, and faculty, but to the generations ahead if we are to maintain our land grant mission and achieve the levels to which we aspire.
We are told that the university is in financial crisis, a crisis so severe as to necessitate eliminating academic units and programs. Yet, as set forth in the budget plan for fiscal 2011, the university's budget continues to grow: total revenues, assets, and expenditures are all increasing. Indeed the state appropriation has declined, but only to 2006 levels. That doesn't look like a severe financial crisis. Meanwhile, we look around and see the administration dedicating huge sums to new initiatives, new construction, selected sports - and to itself: expenditures for central administration keep rising. Financial stringency leaves undiminished the numbers of vice presidents, not to mention the salaries of top coaches.
No, these highly-paid positions are not to be reduced; rather, the university must shed faculty. To cut costs in its burgeoning budget the university must slash the numbers and variety of courses it offers students, whose tuition it keeps raising. It must shrink graduate programs, withdraw instructional support for the curriculum that remains, and cut funds for research and public engagement.
This is how to achieve excellence? This is how to guarantee undergraduates an extraordinary education? This is how we become one of the top three universities in the universe?
Meanwhile, we are all asked to participate in the quest to generate new sources of revenue, as well as finding ways to hold down costs and enhance "productivity." Yet the university's current budget model effectively requires units to compete against each other for funds, inhibiting the collaboration that would best serve the institution both financially and academically. Now the plan is to cut our way to distinction by pruning the tree of knowledge.
All of the verbigeration about "excellence," about "strategic investments," about "advancing quality," and so on, is deployed to obscure the goal of using the present financial crisis as a tool for starving certain parts of the university in order to feed others. No explicit relationship is ever articulated between revenue generation and other elements of the propaganda. But the objective is evident: those programs engaged in the production of knowledge that is readily turned into money are the targets of "investment," while the rest are to be downsized into an efficient credit-and-degree factory, featuring a handful of well-supported "star" faculty to make the programs look good - while as much curriculum as possible is delivered by the cheapest possible instructors.
Accordingly, the College of Liberal Arts, which has already lost dozens of faculty positions, stands to lose dozens more, while the construction of a new biomedical facility is to include the addition of 40 new faculty. Certainly biomedical research is valuable, but why should students pay $11,000 per year to get an etiolated liberal-arts education on an assembly-line model? CLA is a significant revenue generator, teaching by far the most students while receiving proportionately the lowest share of the state appropriation, so that CLA students effectively subsidize the rest of the university through their tuition. (Same goes for IT.) This cash cow will be milked yet harder now - but at the price of the quality the administration advertises, and to the detriment of the university's educational mission.
The Regents ought to use their authority to exercise far closer scrutiny of the university's expenditures and how they do or do not align with its core mission of education, research, and public engagement. The present administration's plans would transform what was erstwhile a great research university into a handmaiden of industry, where, for the price of a real education, students receive gussied-up vocational training and exit in debt.