Lasers wrote: kapital98 wrote: Lasers wrote:
It doesn't make any sense to give a 5% raise and then fire people. I highly doubt the productivity of each person will increase in a linear fashion. Instead of giving high pay raises he should have fired less people and kept pay constant. His comments are inherently at odds with previous comments about cutting costs.
(However, the 5% increase could be mandated by exogenous factors, like union agreements, and he's just taking credit for them.)
well i assume that the people who stay get the 5% raise but more responsibilities/duties. additionally, a 5% raise probably isn't even close to the amount cut from laying people off, so it's not like not giving them a raise would have saved many (if any) people from getting fired. i think it makes a lot of sense actually to give them the raise.
That's why I brought in worker productivity. A small raise over many different positions could have saved a number of jobs. Any potential increase in marginal productivity isn't enough to explain the absolute change relative to costs (which is the supposed point of the layoffs.)
It's like Dean Wu is saying we need to cut costs to be a better school but at the same time we need to increase costs in order to prove we're financially fit. It's inherently contradictory and sounds, at least facially, like a bad policy.
marginal utility or not, i am still unconvinced not giving a 5% raise could have saved jobs. now i don't know how many workers there are, or how much they all make, but 5% raises wouldn't amount to anymore than a handful of jobs, if that.
also, i don't think dean wu used the raises specifically to show we are financially fit. it's more likely they cut who they decided to cut and then found a reasonable amount for a raise that they could afford (while also still keeping costs low enough to fit the new budget). citing that a 5% raise shows that the school is in fine financial shape after the decision was made doesn't necessarily mean that the raises were made to prove the school's financial vitality.
but really, it's anyone's guess since we don't really know what's going on.
Article: "As evidence that Hastings is in "robust financial condition right now," he noted that the school implemented a 5 percent pay raise this year for all non-faculty employees."
Budget (--LinkRemoved--): Career faculty and staff salaries amount to ~$22 million. Non-career faculty and staff wages amount to ~$2 million. Additional benefits significantly increase costs but cannot be broken down. (I would really like to see something specifically related to staff expenditures but I can't seem to find anything on Hastings' website at the moment.
It very simple math. A small portion of money over many different positions creates a large amount of money. Assume every staff member is paid $50K. That means you can either fire 1 staff member or give 20 staff members a 5% raise. Extrapolate that to the bigger picture.
Yes, as a defense you could say marginal producivity may increase. However, the absolute productivity of the school would still be less than keeping more members of the staff and not giving raises.
Giving raises to the workers, without a corresponding increase in productivity, hurts the school and doesn't make financial sense. The purpose of a school is not to pay employees more money. It's to educate students.
I'm not saying the raises were made to show financial stability. I think: 1) Wu is trying to spin mandatory pay raises; or, 2) trying to buy off support through raises.
The only thing I think we agree about is:
Lasers wrote:but really, it's anyone's guess since we don't really know what's going on.