Thank you, Richard, for your very well reasoned and important
letter.  I most certainly agree with you.

I would also like to know about the extra one percent raise.
We were first told that the budget cuts made the extra
one percent raise impossible.  Then there was an article
in the newspaper about how the increased enrollment might
yet make it possible to fund an extra one percent.  Since
then I have heard nothing, although it seems that the idea
of an extra one percent has been dropped.  Did I miss some
important communication?  I would appreciate it if someone
with some knowledge of this issue would respond on RAVEN.
Given the extra money from the higher enrollment, is it
not possible to at least bring the faculty/staff pay raises
up to level of inflation so that we will not continue to
experience actual cuts in our purchasing power?  Do we
need a union to bargain for us to make sure that the
extra money from higher enrollments is spent the way we
want it spent?

Leland Robinson
Sociology





At 08:48 AM 8/29/2001 -0400, Richard Rice wrote:
>George Orwell may have got his timing off by two decades, but his narrative
>on language and truth in his "1984" seems very appropriate these days.
>
>We have been told in various public forums that UTC gets better faculty
>than it deserves, because we keep performing, in spite of our low pay
>compared to comparable institutions and long-term (even before 1984!)
>decline in actual buying power. There have been very few years when our pay
>adjustment has equalled inflation, let alone exceeded it. A "raise" is not
>a raise. This is a good deal for the reluctant taxpayers of this state and
>their feckless representatives.
>
>Furthermore, Tennessee does recognize loyalty and performance in part by
>the longevity pay formula, which guarantees us a hundred bucks a year up to
>25 years, even in the hard times. Come to think of it, since "good times"
>are difficult to recall, perhaps we should think in terms of "hard" and
>"harder" times, like right now. But I digress. Since longevity pay ceases
>after 25 years, is anything beyond that stupidity pay? It is beginning to
>look that way.
>
>Last week news filtered down through the administrative structure that
>Summer School was again facing a budget crisis. Over the years there have
>been conflicting arguments about whether or not Summer School pays for
>itself or is a burden. In any case, department heads have now been told to
>expect cuts and heavy reliance on lower cost new faculty or adjuncts to
>staff courses.
>
>If long-term faculty are to be avoided because of their higher cost, this
>in effect is a negative longevity policy, more than cancelling out the one
>mentioned above. It can only add to the salary compression we already have
>at UTC. It will also have a dramatic long-term effect on retirement pay,
>which is based on the five highest years of remuneration.
>
>We all realize that the university is facing drastic cuts in funding year
>after year, but I am sure that, after exploring fully all the other
>alternatives, a fair policy will be adopted. One that is longevity-neutral.
>We should not shut out those with decades of service to UTC. The pie may be
>shrinking, but let's divide it without punishing loyalty to the
>institution. If we do not share the shrinking moola around here, longevity
>will indeed look a lot like stupidity.
>
>Richard Rice
>
>P.S. The Theatre Department's timely presentation of "Death of a Salesman"
>this year whould not be missed by any Willy Loman wannabees. It is a
>must-see for the longevity-challenged.
>