“I do not know of any organization that achieves budget discipline from the bottom up. We need to be sufficiently top-down to get the job done. Nobody’s going to volunteer to make the kind of changes that are required.”
Christopher Edley (94)
Some of the discussion on Chris' post regarding the letter from the 36 in defense of their pensions has focused on the number of those affected. Part of the problem in calculating this number has to do with the lack of clarity about what constitutes "covered compensation." I cannot clarify for individual cases but the official program description for UCRP (for members with Social Security) indicates on page 26 the following definition of Covered Compensation:
Covered Compensation
The gross monthly pay that an active employee receives for a regular and normal appointment, including pay while on sabbatical or other approved leave of absence with pay. Not included are:
pay for overtime unless in the form of compensatory time off;
pay for correspondence courses, summer session, intersession and for interquarter or vacation periods or University extension courses, unless such employment constitutes part of an annual or indefinite appointment;
pay for a position that is not normally full time except if paid on a salary or hourly rate basis;
pay that exceeds the full-time rate for the regular, normal position to which the member is appointed;
pay that exceeds the base salary as negotiated under the General Health Sciences Compensation Plan or Medical School Clinical Compensation Plan;
pay that exceeds the established base pay rates, including nonelective deferred compensation, honoraria and consulting fees; payments received as uniform allowance, unless included as part of compensation for a regular and normal appointment;
pay that exceeds the IRC §401(a)(17) dollar limit.
For Plan year 2009–2010, the earnings limit is $245,000. (For those who were active members before July 1, 1994, the earnings limit for Plan year 2009–2010 is $360,000.); and payments received as housing allowance beginning with January 1994 earnings.
Covered compensation does not include pay from sources other than the University of California.
Now I have to admit that some of these categories make no sense to me but others may know better.
I would also point out that if you run the ucglobalpay and use the category of professor (you can do tis for the system and not for any single campus), put in a base salary of $245,000 (just for a test) not only do the numbers drop considerably (you get 403 total but only 219 for professors in the 2009 year) but they are overwhelmingly located--surprise!--in the medical schools and to a lesser extent in the professional schools.
Just for the record if you put $245,000 in the line for "gross pay" (although I suspect that gross pay is not the correct category given the covered compensation definitions above) you get total 2124, for Professors 851. Similar patters about medical schools and professional schools seem to apply (although I did it quickly)
That is where the financial action is on this issue.
More Subway Work in Westwood
5 hours ago
6 comments:
Isn't this whole the issue the kind of issue that pits people inside the institution against each other? It allows the politicians and others to walk away from dealing with the real issues. Isn't the real issue the underfunding of the University? Is the UC defined benefit plan any different from PERS or STRS? Do those 2 plans have an upper limit? I think when the history of this period is written, it will turn out that it was a colossal mistake for UC to have set up a separate retirement system different from the retirement system for other state/public employees. Yes, there might have been similar issues but they would have been focused on the whole public sector rather than singling out UC. And PERS benefits are in many cases more generous than UCRS benefits.
The issue about high pensions has only become an issue because of high salaries. Are we saying that high salaries are okay so long as pensions are capped? Why not just have higher paid employees pay more into the pension? I think the real issue is the appropriate salary for a position. Why a person getting that salary should have different rules for their pension -- I don't really see the logic.
This is class warfare from the top down. And it also shows how admins expect to get things done. Secret memos, general threats as well as threats of lawsuits, secret meetings. It's not a conspiracy, it simply makes a mockery of transparency and faculty governance when the 36 can storm Yudof's office with their hands out. The rest of us, faculty and staff haven't had a Cost of Living Increase in years. Yet we've been told that we can't ask for more from the state or the UC because we should be GRATEFUL we have generous pensions and jobs at all. It seems that only the little should be grateful while big guns get to be DEMANDING. It's classic. How many of the 36 actually do teaching? How much time have they spent in a lab or classroom recently?
There was a word that upper admins kept using during the furloughing of the faculty -- "optics" and the threat of a walkout on 9-24-09. I think their Orwellian phrase didn't have anything to do with our own powers of "visioning" an equitable and excellent university. I believe when they said optics, they meant "public perception." We were told that we shouldn't walk out or join the unions in striking because of the "optics" of the situation. What, pray tell, are the optics of the demands of the 36?
anon 11:47am
you have to also look at UC's history on whistle blower protections- some UC whistle blower protections will become active at the stroke of midnight tonight- it was a hard fight to get them and we did not get all of them- it could have been stronger. raising a glass of veuve clicquot to all who worked on that!
also you have to look at the $$$ UC auxiliaries and how they have been allowed to operate.
UC elite/plutocrats/evildoers (whatever you want to call them) have enjoyed all of this up to now by being treated as separate and apart from the rest of the state's public sector- now the majority in the lower echelons are not so happy with the smaller and smaller slice of crumb cake they are being given and all of it is finally seriously being questioned and challenged-- the state audit will come out this month and that will be just as important to look at as these most recent pension stories. (although some pretty stinging previous audits came out before and not much happened.)
see:
http://cloudminder.blogspot.com/2010/07/project-on-govt-oversight-pogo-comments.html
http://cloudminder.blogspot.com/2010/08/is-sb-330-expendable.html
http://www.bohemian.com/bohemian/12.01.10/news-1048.html
it all goes together --
and Samuels' suggestions at the end of his most recent post also would help.("By freezing student fees, increasing instructional budgets, and reducing the size and costs of administration, the UC system will be in a much better position to protect state funding and its public image.")
don't see the majority splitting apart- rather see key groups coming together the more info that comes out.
this could indeed be our Thermopylae.
Does anybody know if these high earners pay UCRP contributions on earnings above $245K?
Don't think they pay into UCRP for income above $245,000 (unless they were hired prior to 1994, in which case they pay into UCRP up to $360,000).
Of course UCRP contributions only recommenced on April 15, 2010. Between 1991 and 2010 nobody contributed. High earners contributed 2% up to the Social Security Wage Base ($53,400 in 1991, rising to its current value of $106,800 as of 2009), and 4% above that to their DCP.
Have no idea whether or not 4% above $245,000 is now going into the DCP.
Join the Conversation
Note: Firefox is occasionally incompatible with our comments section. We apologize for the inconvenience.