Universities using economy as an excuse for pay and hiring freezes
Are university and college administrations justified in blaming the current economy as validation for putting drastic practices into place, such as hiring and salary freezes, furloughs and layoffs, often with little or no faculty input? I am convinced that, at many higher education establishments, the recession is not impacting their actual bottom lines to the extent they are indicating.
Susan Moeller: Some of our higher education institutions around the country are in better budgetary positions than they appear to indicate.
In recent years, Howard Bunsis, professor of accounting at Eastern Michigan University, and Rudy Fichtenbaum, professor of economics at Wright State University, have analyzed many educational institutions’ audited financial statements while helping prepare collective bargaining chapters for contract negotiations. As increasing numbers of administrations attempt to push through such unwelcome measures, the faculty and AAUP chapters have been turning to these experts to uncover the real facts.
Among those Bunsis has been working with are Bowling Green State University and University of Illinois at Chicago (UIC). Bowling Green is about to organize a chapter of the American Association of University Professors (AAUP). I wonder if it is concern over administrative actions is what’s guiding an overwhelming majority of faculty at Bowling Green to sign cards supporting unionization with AAUP?
At UIC, the request for an outside financial review came from the faculty’s AAUP chapter and the American Federation of Teachers (AFT) for the United Faculty Organizing Committee. Following his study of the university’s finances, Bunsis drafted an in-depth report of the combined campuses audited financial statements, as well as the Chicago campus itself. The report was titled “Analysis of the Financial Condition of the University of Illinois System.”
Bunsis pointed out that, “Overall, the financial condition of the University of Illinois is strong. The conclusion is based on an analysis of the financial statements, as is demonstrated by examining three broad measures of financial performance: revenues versus expenses and the growth in revenues; low levels of debt; and strong reserves. More importantly, the first line of the 2008 financial report states (which was written in January of 2009): ‘The University is well positioned to continue its strong financial condition.’”
At particular issue for the AAUP and the AFT (American Federation of Teachers) committee is the University of Illinois’ implementation of furlough days for academic employees in the system. In his report, Bunsis refuted the claim by some administrators who support furloughs that the value of the investments of the UI Foundation has declined considerably. Bunsis maintains there is no validity to that argument and concludes that, as “expenses are growing or expected to grow at a rate identical to revenue growth, it is not appropriate that furloughs are even being considered.”
An article that appeared in the Chicago Flame on February 8 wondered if “furlough days are doing more harm than good for the university, not just in terms of the dwindling morale on campus, but with regard to whether or not it is sound fiscal policy. It is also unclear if furloughs are fair to faculty.”
Bunsis reviewed Eastern Michigan University’s (EMU) own finances in 2009. He responded to opinions proffered by the school’s chief financial office and a press release issued by the administration, which suggested the institution was suffering major financial woes. His analysis demonstrated that EMU was in “a very strong financial condition and, in fact, the best financial shape it has been in for many years. This may seem surprising given the bleak economic climate in the area, but higher education is counter-cyclical: many people who are unemployed or underemployed go back to school.”
Bunsis is treasurer of Eastern Michigan University’s AAUP chapter. In early February, he was invited to attend the Michigan State of the State speech and sat on the Michigan House of Representatives floor with Pam Byrnes, Speaker Pro Tem.
Like my colleague, I believe that some of our higher education institutions around the country are in better budgetary positions than they appear to indicate. If their administrations could be transparent about the diversity of funds available to them, and place a greater emphasis on academics and on allowing faculty a more inclusive role in governance, our institutions would be more efficient and cost-effective. Additionally, workplace morale would be enhanced and our students would reap the benefits.
Susan Moeller, Ph.D., is president of the American Association of University Professors, Eastern Michigan University.
Comments
runbum03
Tue, Aug 3, 2010 : 3:52 p.m.
Is Moeller part of a hiring push to hire the insane? Or merely criminally insane. "Over the past 30 years, the average cost of college tuition and fees has risen 250% for private schools and nearly 300% for public schools (in constant dollars). The salaries of professors have also risen much faster than those of other occupations." Mark Bauerlein, Wall St Journal Over a million jobless in the state and she looks for "more?" Nutso.
jpcomment
Mon, Jun 14, 2010 : 10:42 p.m.
A company has a product. The workers at the company design the product, create the product, deliver the product and improve the product. The product is wildly successful. The company makes a nice profit. Are the workers entitled to ask for a raise? To receive additional compensation in one form or another for the success of the product? Isn't that the American way? Likewise if the product is successful and in demand, why not raise the price and charge more until the customers decide to stop buying? And if you believe your product is far superior to the competition, can't you charge more? Isn't this the American business model? Go look at the profits these Universities are generating year after year (their financial statements are all online). Almost all the public universities in MI have financial reserves over $100M. Oakland made $10 Million profit last year to add to their reserves. EMU made over $7M profit. Both of them selling the product of their faculty. And look at the outcomes of this product, while looking up EMU's data I read their Impact statement. They claim for every $1 the State invests in EMU, EMU returns $42 to the State coffers. That's one hell of an annual return on investment. Look at Ann Arbor, and imagine what it would look like if the company called the University of Michigan with an annual budget of $5 BILLION suddenly left town. Of course you can decide not to buy their products. Do not go to college. Make the choice to have a job where you are easy to replace, and the American business model will replace you with cheaper labor. Or invest in your future, go to college, choose a significant major, live smartly while you are in college, and earn a career that will probably pay for the investment in less than 5 years. And before you complain that universities are different because they are partially (less than 30%) funded by the taxpayers,you should be aware of that nearly every business is directly or indirectly funded by the taxpayers via grants, loans, bailouts, tax abatements, land deals, mineral rights, etc. How did cities in Georgia and North Carolina lure big companies to town? They "waived" the taxes to "fund" the bottom line of that business. That's also the American business model. Lastly, if these university jobs are so "cushy" and "easy", why not go and get one yourself instead of whining on a website?
O Rly
Wed, Jun 9, 2010 : 8:16 a.m.
@Treetowncartel. The guys mowing the yards at my university get better benefits than I do (as an adjunct professor); they are unionized. So I guess you are saying that these hard working maintenance guys don't deserve good benefits and that they should just be underpaid, not get any health benefits, and generally be expendable? I'm not upset with *them* because they have better benefits and fair pay (and it's not much, not much as you would probably get a lot of other places that have crappier benefits). I am upset with the extremely overpaid administration who hasn't proven itself even remotely deserving of the millions of dollars it reaps every year for salary (it has made a series of very costly blunders in the last years, to the tune of seven million dollars). @JSA, yes the tenure system needed fixing, but it is being fazed out without really any discussion. Someone retires or moves onto another job then adjuncts are hired. In my dept., we lost a half a dozen tenure-track faculty (poor pay was cited) and only one was replaced by a tenure-track. Also, tenure professors *CAN* be terminated; we had several terminated this year. So you can understand why adjuncts want to organize and have done so at nearly every state university. And I am talking about adjuncts who, in many cases, were viscerally opposed to unions (especially in Business Depts.) but were tired of being political pawns and paid like serfs (and treated like them too). Instead of getting angry with those who have organized, why not ask *why* they have done so? Unions used to be, during our economic boom times, over 35% of the US workforce; they are now less than 13%, thanks to Reagan's campaign to make them scapegoat of the recession and his "trickle-down" economics. So ask yourself, has anything trickled down to you lately? From Wall Street? From your company? If so, count yourself as very fortunate.
treetowncartel
Mon, Jun 7, 2010 : 8:54 p.m.
All the benfits of a public employee, cry me a river. Look at U of M's page on benefits. They still match 401k contribution, 2-1, what a farce. That two comes from the pockets of the citizens.If you can survive om endowments alone, then do it!
JSA
Mon, Jun 7, 2010 : 11:18 a.m.
I am not nearly as offended by the salaries of the professors as is the author. I am deeply offended by the outrageous pay scale for the administrators in public universities. I am not a supporter of the tenure system as it currently works/doesn't work in keeping incompetent professors employed but there has to be some kind of system to prevent arbitrary firings based on personal issues or dislikes. Too many teaching assistants and grad students are teaching in the universities while the professors do research. The system is flawed and needs to be looked at but letting the unions or professors hold any kind of a veto is ridiculous. You don't let the inmates run the asylum.
O Rly
Mon, Jun 7, 2010 : 8:09 a.m.
Let's all become Maoists and have those fat-cat professors, you know the one's that make 26,000 a year, till the fields. This is sounding more and more like the Cultural Revolution here, folks. Took China a generation to recover from that (and they are still recovering). But, hey, we aren't communists, right? Sigh.
Edward R Murrow's Ghost
Mon, Jun 7, 2010 : 4:42 a.m.
When the facts are inconvenient, just ignore 'em. Good Night and Good Luck
snapshot
Sun, Jun 6, 2010 : 10:49 p.m.
Mr.Ghost confuses me by using the state decrease in funding to discount the percent tuition has increased over the years. The simple fact is that education costs are increasing far more rapidly than income and inflation. I don't care what kind of decrease in funding has occurred in that same period. In fact, if the funding decreased, why do union members keep getting salary and benefit increases? Also, why are there now more government union members at 7.8 million as oppossed to corporate members at 7.2 million? Because coporate lost over 1/2 million jobs and government only decreased by about 120,000, since the recession began in late '07. Go figure Mr. Ghost, do you know what an inverted funding pyramid is? It's fewer tazpayers paying for government and its employees. All the bureacratic and union mumbo jumbo in the world can't, and won't change the fact that taxpayers can't afford the arrogant attitude of unions, the weak spending restraints of elected officials, and continued "robber baron" behavior of government employees with their pension "spiking", last year promotions, and automatic diploma mill salary increases, and let us not forget the cushy buyouts. This information has been covered extensively in all the quality financial publications. The old saying is, "you don't argue about facts, you look them up". It's the type of logic that Mr. Ghost is trying to use that has gotten us into the economic mess we're in. To think it will help get us out, well, you'd be chasing a ghost.
O Rly
Sun, Jun 6, 2010 : 9:52 p.m.
What are you talking about? Do you NOT understand that the "tenure" is the now the exception rather than rule. ADJUNCTS teach the majority of university courses in the U.S. Some estimates are as high as 70 percent of classes, but let's say, conservatively, that it is 50% of all courses in the country (at my university, it is 64% of the courses). As my previous post indicated, we are paid poorly, very poorly. Some could make more money bar-tending or waiting tables. Do some research and you will see that I am not exaggerating. If you have kids in college, research where your money is being spent. Faculty doesn't account for that much. The majority of money is spent on buildings, maintenance, and utilities. Athletic facilities and scholarships also eat up an enormous of money too. You could pay for 11 adjuncts a year with what the (state) university I teach at pays our provost, and you could pay for approximately 19 adjuncts a year with what the president is paid (and compensated for, such as housing, utilities, car, gas, clothing allowance, etc.). So two administrators are paid as much as 30 or more instructors/assistant professors. So exactly who is the elite here? It's not the *majority* of professors who teach in this state. CynicA2 has it partially right. There are a lot of Americans with advanced degrees, but look in any Higher Education job posting site, and you will see tons of jobs... for adjuncts. If you want your education run like a corporation, like McDonald's, and your student's profs paid like fast food workers, and expected to teach by committee, then don't be surprised if the quality and usefulness of students' degrees continues to plummet. If educators and education is valued so little, why does everyone send their kids to college? It's just baffling.
Top Cat
Sun, Jun 6, 2010 : 6:43 p.m.
Translation....WE are the elite and WE are entitled and WE should be exempt from this dirty little fray of something called the economy which affects those little auto workers or something. Yo Susan, we need a Governor in Michigan like Chris Christie of NJ to pop your bubble and wake you up to reality in 2010.
CynicA2
Sun, Jun 6, 2010 : 3:44 p.m.
The American higher education system has been so successful at educating Americans (and the rest of the world, for that matter), that there are now large surpluses of people with advanced degrees in just about any discipline you can think of. Sometimes shortages crop-up, as with teachers 15-20 years ago, and nurses currently, but the system quickly fills in the blanks. A few years down the road we'll probably have a surplus of nurses, too. I don't know how many UM actually hires, but I do know that the number of available positions listed on their website in any given week is down at least 50% from what it was 4-5 years ago. For every one they hire now, there is very often another being quietly booted out the back door, so as not to destroy the illusion of "job growth".
O Rly
Sun, Jun 6, 2010 : 2:38 p.m.
None of you know what you are talking about. Cushy jobs? Really, for whom? The tenured/tenure-track faculty are being replaced by adjuncts, who, like me, with PhDs, often make under 40,000 a year. I work 70 hours weeks to keep up with grading, teach summers, mentor students, write endless letters of recommendation for graduating students, donate time for tutoring, write, publish, and occasionally sleep. I am paid 37,000 a year (by a state school in Michigan), have had my benefits curtailed radically over the years, and have to reapply, like nearly adjunct at my university, *every* year for my job. Not just letter, but a revised CV, letter, teaching statement, syllabus for each class that I teach, grade distribution, student opinion scores, and assignments: this year, over forty pages. So how many of you, in the "private sector" do that? Right... I thought so. I teach because I love to teach. Obviously, I don't do it for the money, but comments like the ones on this board really make me rethink my professionall the timebecause they are becoming more frequent, are based on nonexistent or poor research and are just ugly and insulting. The students are grateful for what I do, and I have letter upon letter from past students to prove that, but it seems that some parents, rather than ask how much the *administration* at the school they send their kids to is getting paid (see increases in administrative pay over the past ten years: our president, with all the freebies and "bonuses" is clearing a half million a year) would rather kick the dedicated faculty that teach their kids in the teeth. Adjuncts are the biggest group of faculty at most state institutions, and if you think that it is OK to pay someone with a Master's Degree $22,000, like MAs in my department and others are being paid, a year to teach full-time then remember this: you get what you pay for. Most of these faculty are teaching seven to eight classes at two to three universities to make enough to pay rent. Are they tired? Yes. Are they effective. Well, you work 90 to 100 hours a week and see how effective you are at this sort of work (yes, one of my colleagues with an MA works over 90 hours a week to pull down the "cushy" salary of 26,000 between three academic jobs). So who is tone deaf here? And why do faculty need unions? Well, if you guys don't appreciate us, the administration takes it cues from youexcept when it comes to their salaries. Honestly, folks, give me a break. I suppose I am to be punished and take a vow of poverty because I want to teach your kids: how long do you think dedicated and proven faculty are going to stay in this field? Not long, I can tell you, and the very best are leaving all the time, which is more expensive in the long run because of turnover costs. Why do you take your wrath out on us? I'm so discouraged...
Edward R Murrow's Ghost
Sun, Jun 6, 2010 : 2:29 p.m.
Me Next wrote: "If I were on the Board, she would be the first to go." And there could be no better example of why there is tenure: a desire to fire someone because you don't like their opinion. Good Night and Good Luck
Me Next
Sun, Jun 6, 2010 : 2:23 p.m.
Neither faculty nor unions should overpower "Boards" responsible to the contributors. Neither faculty nor unions have a right to see a college or Universities financial records. Just "public funds", & how they are used, just like the general public. This doesn't give faculty or unions the right to funds. If a crime is suspected it becomes a Law matter. You work there or not, your choice. They pay you what they believe they can afford for what your service is worth to them. People who pay the tuition & buy the books have a right to complain or go somewhere else, after getting a refund for non-service. Our nation & many states are in financial deficits due to buying the illusion that money solves problems & respective taxpayers could allows be forced to surrender more of their labor. If I were on the Board, she would be the first to go. I never went to a tea party either. I certainly agree with what I've heard their spokesmen say.
Edward R Murrow's Ghost
Sun, Jun 6, 2010 : 2:14 p.m.
What part of the U of M losing $150 million in funding don't you understand? Do you think that cuts weren't made? The state of Michigan, virtually every municipality, virtually every college and university, and virtually every K-12 school district in the state have experienced drastic cuts in revenue over the last decade. They have been cutting back--cutting programs, cutting jobs, cutting pay. Anyone who thinks otherwise has not been paying attention, be they teapartyists, liberterianists, or whatever. Good Night and Good Luck
stunhsif
Sun, Jun 6, 2010 : 1:44 p.m.
Public education whether K-12 or higher, needs to control costs. That means shared sacrifice. So far only the taxpayers have taken it in the shorts. The state employees like Susan here need to face reality. The taxpayers are tapped out in this state and it is insulting to most of us to see folks like Susan so out of touch and so insulated from reality. BTW--I am a libertarian, not a tea party member, quit lumping anyone who disagrees with you as a tea party member please. Good Day
Edward R Murrow's Ghost
Sun, Jun 6, 2010 : 1:29 p.m.
Thanks, Steve. As I said, apples and oranges. Stunshif is comparing annual inflation rates to multi-year increases in tuition. Still, the apparent difference between the two causes one to pause. But that difference can be largely explained by the decline in state funding between 2003 and 2009. In 2002 the state provided $415 million to the U of M. Governor Granholm now proposes to maintain the state's 2010-11 contribution to the U of M at the 2009-10 level of $323 million. If that happens, it represents a 23% decrease in funding over the last decade. Adjusted for inflation, it means that the U of M will receive nearly $150 million less 2010-11 than it did 2002-03. I guarantee that virtually every other state university experienced similarly drastic cuts in state funding over that period (I do seem to recall that there was one year where GVSU, Sag. St., and one other small school actually saw a targeted increase due to the socio-economic status of their student bodies). Decreased funding from the state requires increased price paid by the customers, it's that simple. So the rate of inflation is only part (and a very unimportant part) of the story behind tuition increases. If teapartyists want to keep down student-paid education costs, they need to be prepared to pay higher taxes. Naaaaaah. Who am I kidding? Never gonna' happen. Good Night and Good Luck
stunhsif
Sun, Jun 6, 2010 : 1:27 p.m.
Got the numbers off the internet cousin Eddy.Pretty much confirmed by Mr. Pepple of A2.com. CMU increased tuition 21% in the fall of 07. U of M up 56% from 2002 till now, that did not include room and board. When my son entered MSU in the fall of 05, tuition increased 13.1% from the year before. I am not making up the numbers and the numbers tell us very clearly that tuition increases are out of control. So Susan's ranting is so out of touch with reality, she may as well be on planet Neptune.
John Galt
Sun, Jun 6, 2010 : 12:58 p.m.
Cry me a river. These chushy University jobs exist through taxation and outrageous tuition fees. If the rest of the country is cutting back, you need to as well.
Steve Pepple
Sun, Jun 6, 2010 : 12:50 p.m.
Some figures on tuition increases were given in last month's editorial on the tuition freeze at Eastern Michigan University.
L. C. Burgundy
Sun, Jun 6, 2010 : 12:35 p.m.
This reminds me that public employees should barred from forming or participating in unions. The contributing stakeholders (taxpayers and students) have zero presence at the negotiation table, leading to all sorts of shenanigans.
Edward R Murrow's Ghost
Sun, Jun 6, 2010 : 11:20 a.m.
And, BTW, the 3% you throw out is, at worst, an annual number, certainly not over 2003-2009. The number for six years aggregate would be larger (assuming you're not making that up, too). So your numbers are apples and oranges. Did you know that? If so, that says much. Or did you not know that? If so, that says much, too! Good Night and Good Luck
Edward R Murrow's Ghost
Sun, Jun 6, 2010 : 11:17 a.m.
Source? Numbers? Like anyone will take your word for it. And % increases are usually, in the real world, understood to be on an annual basis. Over the last 100 years I'm certain tuition has gone up > 1000% Not certain what that tells us. Good Night and Good Luck
stunhsif
Sun, Jun 6, 2010 : 10:51 a.m.
From 2003 to 2009 average tuition/room&board increased 72% at the 15 Michigan public schools. That works out to about 10% Mr. Ghostie!
Edward R Murrow's Ghost
Sun, Jun 6, 2010 : 10:14 a.m.
Sigh. I don't know which is worse: A university professor who, whatever else might be true, appears to be completely tone deaf to the current political and economic situation, or, The replies to her piece that ooze sarcasm but that offer not one fact (indeed, they pass on fictions--EMU tuition went up 10%--when, exactly, did that happen at EMU or any other state school in the last decade?) in reply to the professor, or, The reply from the recent WSU grad, the quality whose writing suggests they ought to demand a refund for any English and/or writing classes they took while attending that school. Thanks, Craig L., for bringing some facts to bear! Facts are always a good thing! Good Night and Good Luck
Heardoc
Sun, Jun 6, 2010 : 9:19 a.m.
I just graduate from Wayne State Univ. This complaint of hers is a joke. Tuition has gone through the roof, salaries are way out of line with job function. This is garbage of what she speaks. So what if the Univ have more money -- that does not mean more money for the teachers. Maybe we can lower tuition instead? what a thought! These unions at public institutions should be banned. Police, Firemen, AFSCME and the union for university professors all should be outlawed. This woman acts as if the money the university has belongs to her and her union. Senf them packing!
Craig Lounsbury
Sun, Jun 6, 2010 : 9 a.m.
".... but higher education is counter-cyclical: many people who are unemployed or underemployed go back to school. Nice spin but not completely honest. For schools with an annual waiting list to get in there is nothing "counter cyclical". The concept only applies to schools who struggle to fill an annual freshman class. Further more in the case of EMU their web site says they have an enrollment of slightly over 23,000 while as far back as 2002 when the economy was doing a lot better their attendance was listed as 22,837. That seems to be in the +/- 1% range.
stunhsif
Sun, Jun 6, 2010 : 8:45 a.m.
I feel so bad for Susan. She has it so very very rough. Cushy union benefits,sabaticals whenever, easy work schedules. It is a joke that someone with a Ph.D. is even in a union. They need the union so they can suck the taxpayers, the students and their parents dry with ever increasing tuition costs. Why does tuition go up an average of 10% a year or more when inflation is 3%? And big deal that EMU freezes tuition for one year. Do it for the next ten and then maybe you can brag about it.