Thursday, June 9, 2016

"the new tier amounted to a ruinous and extravagant loophole tailored exclusively for top-earning UC faculty and administrators. "

On the Committee of two deal on UC Pension and more: UC Retirement Plan Under Threat

"“I think a large issue with that 2015 deal is that the university negotiated a permanent change in the pension system in exchange for a short-term commitment from the state,” observed Dr, Michael Meranze, a UCLA history professor who also blogs about UC faculty issues. “Whereas the state, for instance, makes annual contributions, say, to [California State University’s] pension and to other state employee pensions. … The state has never formally admitted that it benefitted from those years of non-contribution, nor [has it] formally committed to restarting its contributions on a regular basis.”
The point is more than academic, explained Celeste Langan, co-chair of the UC Berkeley Faculty Association. Part of the lure of a lower-paying public research university for scholars, who have already delayed entering the job market for as much as decade to get a PhD (along with a mountain of student loan debt), is precisely the robust retirement security offered by its pensions compared to 401(k)s at private universities.
“There used to be a pretty clear combination of scaled salary and defined benefits,” she told Capital & Main. “So that we understood that our salaries did not match other comparable private enterprise salaries, and that in return for that lower salary we got defined benefits. … And for all of the difficulties that we experienced during the Great Recession in terms of a faculty cut in pay with a furlough, etcetera, in many ways we were better off than our colleagues at universities with IRAs. The story was, ‘I’m going to roll over my IRA for another ten years of labor.’ People who had been planning to retire had their savings wiped out.”"

Also see:
Katehi Fighting Back against Allegations from UC President Napolitano

"On Wednesday, the Vanguard spoke to Ms. Guzman by phone.

“The April 27 letter (has) the allegations that supposedly supported this so-called independent and neutral investigation,” she said. “Each instance, we are contesting these allegations.”

She called the allegations, as laid out in the letter, “baseless,” calling them “issues that either already have been dealt with or were known.” She said, “The alleged whistleblower complaint was a whistleblower complaint that had existed for several years and had been dealt with not only at the campus level but by the UCOP that resulted in a November 2014 letter to the whistleblower informing him that there (was) no merit to his claim.”

“So for all this to be pasted into this letter as the basis for this paid administrative leave and then broadcast to the world in the manner in which it was – yes – we’re contesting that,” Ms. Guzman told the Vanguard.

Ms. Guzman also pointed out that, for an employee, this letter was "

Includes reference to (UC owned? Phone, computers):

"There are also issues involving access to things like Katehi’s Apple iPhone, and Ms. Guzman alleges that there are attorney-client privilege and privacy issues there. She said that she sent a letter and the general counsel has not responded in 15 days to that communication."

"Ms. Guzman called this “an assault on the academic environment, the notion of shared governance, the notion that there is now a police state at UC Davis, the notion that anyone would seize anyone’s computers in violation of their faculty rights.”"
Also mention of describing Napolitano as overly emotional, characterizing prior UC Davis leadership as under a cloud, and requests for some sort of UC Regents actions to intervene come up.

No comments:

Post a Comment