Search This Blog

Tuesday, November 25, 2014

Reality Intrudes on the Garden Party Administration


To: UT-AAUP Colleagues
From: Linda M. Rouillard, UT-AAUP Vice-President
Date: November 24, 2014
Interim President Naganathan and Interim Provost Barrett have indicated a desire to improve the Administration's relationship with the faculty. Here is a good place to start: a fair contract now for a faculty that has not seen so much as a cost-of-living increase since fall 2010. After prolonged negotiations of over 3 years, the new Administration, under the directive of the BOT, has filed for fact-finding.
We had our first negotiation meetings for a new contract in the spring semester of 2011, though the Administration later interrupted negotiations for several months as it awaited passage of SB5. When that union-busting legislation failed, the Administration returned to the table, only to protract the process even more, quibbling over the cost and process of distributing paper copies of a final contract to faculty, perplexed over a definition of shared governance, and determined that a mere name change to "Professor of Practice" would greatly improve the working condition of Lecturers. The Administration has flatly refused to negotiate workload.
In the summer of 2012, the Administration again left the table for several months as punishment for a UT-AAUP newsletter summarizing a Consumer's Report article on the state of UTMC.
The UT-AAUP presented its proposals on compensation and health benefits in the summer of 2012 by certified mail because the Administration would not meet with us. The Administration did not respond to the issue of compensation and health benefits until spring of 2014.
We have responded to numerous Administration proposals including proposals that would have eliminated merit for entire departments should one faculty member be late submitting book orders or grades, and most recently, a proposal tying merit to a 2% enrollment increase.
The Administration insists on spending money on everything and everyone but students and faculty. It bears repeating that UT-AAUP faculty salaries are consistently less than 10% of the academic budget.
The Administration has advised the UT-AAUP that if they do not like the fact-finder's report, the Board of Trustees will simply impose a contract. So much for negotiating in good faith. Will the Administration support its hard-working professoriate before the BOT, or will it follow the Jacobs' model of denigrating faculty?


Anonymous said...

Questions. How many faculty are we talking about in regard to the faculty salaries make up less than 10% of the academic budget statement? What percentage of the budget comes from the upper admin and how many upper admin are there (shall we say, Dean's and up)? In other words, is the BOT trying to save X amount of dollars by screwing 2500 faculty instead of being fiscally conservative with 150 upper admin? How much has the faculty grown in the last 10 years or so? and how much as the senior admin grown, both in terms of bodies and salaries? It seems to me, in the PR war, publicizing such figures is useful - and it will enable the UTAAUP to fight powerpoint with powerpoint. Nothing like a good graphic of admin bloat to get the public's attention!

Anonymous said...

Why did the UT AAUP leadership refuse to share the last offer with the AAUP membership and not hold any meetings and discussions with the members before declining that offer? Most UT AAUP members I have talked to have no idea what the final offer contained and why the UT AAUP leadership alone forced us into fact finding without even asking the members.

Anonymous said...

I'll give the 8.32AM poster the benefit of the doubt, and presume the reference is to some other "offer." The UTAAUP held two meetings for members to discuss the most recent offer - a month or so ago. There is a thread here on the blog regarding the last offer - at least I'm not aware of any offers since the two meetings were held, and that offer only benefited faculty making 90/100K or more, since everyone else would either lose money from the increase in health care costs or break even with the paltry pay raise. I neglected to comment that once again the admin mind set seems directed only at the top pay grades, even when it negotiates with faculty.

Anonymous said...

I count on my AAUP bargaining team to bargain hard on my behalf. They have done so admirably and consistently up to this point and I have no reason to second guess their judgment to head into arbitration. You can only negotiate with thugs for so long, and our expert team has been at it for years. Over that time they have offered reasonable proposals to a jackass BOT and ultimately failed administration. Our negotiating team has demonstrated more patience than I could ever muster up. They have had to put up with a lot of bad faith that stinks to high heaven, not to mention aggravated sneering and mean-spirited denigration of our UT senior faculty by the administration's pit bull and piss-poor negotiators. It must have been hard for the members of our team seeking a just contract to at times resist leaping over the table and engaging in fisticuffs. So I say "Thanks UT AAUP! Good job so far! Call us into action if and when it comes to that."

Anonymous said...

Absolutely. UT-AAUP's desire to try to punish Jacobs after he's already been dumped has damaged the very people the "leadership" claims to be fighting for.

Probably because the last time a contract was agreed to by UT-AAUP, we approved it even though the leadership recommended against it. It is the same people in charge and they don't want it proven how ineffectual and irrelevant they are for a second time in a row.

Anonymous said...

The "last" offer from UT was given to deans and chairs, and some shared with faculty (mid October), beyond that point I am not aware of any UT AAUP meetings to discuss that offer or next steps (reject and end up in fact finding)

Year one included $2000 + 2.7% after $2000 was applied to base, and increase of faculty share of health care premium to 20% (level that all others at UT will be paying Jan 1st, 2015). Has any UT AAUP member since emails meetings where this was shared by the UT AAUP leadership?

They also provide examples of financial impacts to typical low and high faculty salaries, for example:

Asst Prof ($50,000) with Paramount family coverage, new salary of $53,404 minus $865 health care cost increase = net gain of $2538 (%5 base increase)

Granted there is no back pay and only 1% base increases in years 1 and 2, perhaps worthy fighting for, but with fact finding UT AAUP risks that the decision will not favor UT AAUP and besides it is non binding on either party. I am not saying this is a great or idea offer, but was worth discussing with members.

Do you think that if it comes down to a strike that anyone in the community and other unions at UT (having more recent job losses, already agreed to lower increases and higher health costs) is going to support UT AAUP).

Again key point is that none of these numbers and important issues have never been discussed with the UT AAUP membership in any detail or public forum.

And by the way faculty at UT will never vote to strike, as majority would take the current offer on those terms or similar ones. The only hope UT AAUP has is if at some point in the next month or so the other side sweetens the pot a little so as to avoid questions on the lack of a faculty contract when President candidates come to campus.

Also the Administration hold one more important card that they can play that fact finding and the UT AAUP can do nothing about - simply cut back on the number of replacement faculty new hires with the upcoming wave of retirements. Publicly the number of 50 that has been recently stated (already well short of the number of likely retirements) can easily be cut to offset additional costs from more faculty raises including back pay and future base increases.

Sometimes you get as far as you can and take the offer as it stands - but again the UT AAUP members have not had the chance to discuss this with their leadership.

Anonymous said...

Hopefully more rational, independent thinkers like @2:45 start speaking out and the mindless following of UT-AAUP leadership's pointless rage for rage's sake starts to diminish

Anonymous said...

I know and have spoken to many UT faculty and very few of them support the AAUP leadership or have any confidence in their ability to represent the best interests of their members. And none of us have any idea as to the details of the offer or why AAUP decided to reject offer and we ended up in fact finding. I think we all can understand and appreciate that the Jacobs Administration dragged out these negotiations and treated the AAUP terribly, but he is gone and at least the new administration has been making an offer and attempt to close the deal. What has AAUP been going, nothing as far as I and my colleagues can tell, largely because they have not been talking to us.

Anonymous said...

If the person at 2:45 is correct about the second offer, we could probably sort this out without going to a fact finder. I would support a deal that gave $2k-$3k +2.7% with 1% for the remaining years provided that the administration also gives equity increases to deal with salary disparities for faculty. That would deal with the insurance cost shift and help to close some of the gap between assistant professors who were hired during the past 5 years and those who are being hired now. In our department, new hires are coming in at salaries in the lower $60's while assistants were making in the mid-$50's last year. While I can't speak for other disciplines, salaries at UT have fallen below market at the assistant levels but are fairly competitive at the associate and full level.

Anonymous said...

Playing Academic Fiddles While the Ivory Tower Burns:

October 2014 CNN Documentary Predicts the Imminent Implosion of the Student Loan Debt Bubble and the Possible Accompanying Catastrophic Collapse of the Entire American Higher Education System

50 percent of colleges expected to collapse and go out of business by 2030.

“Women and children can be careless, but not men.” – Don Vito Corleone, The Godfather

We don’t like going over all this “Barzini business” any more than you do and we really, REALLY hate to say we told you so, but…

We assume most of you saw the recent CNN television special documentary “Ivory Tower: Is college worth the cost?”, but for those who may have missed it we have placed a link at the end of this post.

For some fifteen years now we (JdS) have been relentlessly banging the drums of warning regarding the corruption and devaluation of higher education and western culture by Marxist-Feminist Postmodern ideology and theory, political correctness and identity politics – and the corresponding decimation of traditional educational values and standards – in favor of a proliferation of politicized pseudo-academic programs, departments and pseudo-disciplines.

We have also long warned that the unsustainable student loan debt bubble – which now stands at over $1 trillion – is similar to the unsustainable real estate bubble – and that like the artificially subsidized and inflated real estate mortgage loan market that imploded in 2009, the higher education market is another misguided “social justice” Ponzi Scheme pyramid that will likewise inevitably implode – leaving a small number of academic and other elites high, dry, fat and happy, while leaving widespread devastation in its wake for everyone else.

Billionaire PayPal founder, philanthropist and serial entrepreneur Peter Thiel has recently caused something of a national uproar by making this same student loan/real estate comparison, along with other similarly scathing criticisms of higher education (see the CNN special, online videos of Thiel and his book Zero to One - 2014).

In economic terms our educational and cultural degeneration and devaluation (which has impacted every aspect of contemporary society – education, academic research and scholarship, government, law, journalism, media and entertainment, popular culture, economics, ethics, cultural and social institutions, family and social structures, international relations, etc.) was and is very similar to Richard Nixon taking the U. S. Dollar off the gold standard in 1971 (the result of increasingly pervasive misguided unsustainable liberal neo-Marxist “Progressive” economic policies, federal government expansion, central planning and profligate social welfare and defense and other government spending, etc.)

This effectively created a global counterfeit fiat currency Wimpy Burger economy, in which Uncle Sam will gladly pay $2 trillion in freshly printed Federal Reserve funny money notes tomorrow for a $1 trillion cheeseburger today.

This is how the education bubble and countless other government and private sector pie in the sky boondoggles are funded – with the elite players always making out like bandits and average citizen and taxpayer always left holding the bag.

This fiat currency Mother of All Ponzi Scheme’s is also incidentally due to burst very soon – potentially toppling the U. S. dollar from its world reserve currency status and causing a national and global economic and social tsunami of biblical proportions (see James Rickards “The Death of Money: The Coming Collapse of the International Monetary System” - 2014).


Anonymous said...

Ivory Tower 2 cont.

In the academic Ponzi Scheme, the once highly valued and esteemed college diploma was taken off the gold standard of merit and value in the 1960’s and the Ivory Tower Federal Reserve diploma mills have been doing a BOOMING business ever since – printing counterfeit mediocre PC college degrees and proliferating seemingly endless growth in the government subsidized higher education pseudo-academic fool’s gold rush – where academic quality in many areas has plummeted and the quantity of colleges, college administrators, professors, students and college programs and degrees have all skyrocketed – along with education costs and prices.

Real degrees are still being earned and granted in some academic areas, but we now have literally millions of people with college degrees, including PhD’s, particularly in the arts, humanities and social sciences, that cost the student and taxpayer massive amounts of time and money, but are in real terms hardly worth the paper they are printed on.

As noted in the CNN special, the bloated Ivory Tower Pyramid Scheme is due for a sudden and catastrophic collapse in the very near future. Here is a detailed analysis predicting the possibility of a 50 percent attrition rate (i. e. going out of business) among all institutions of higher learning by 2030:

When the student loan/revenue bubble does pop and education revenue streams are effectively shut off, the life expectancy of even many very large and prestigious universities may be calculated in terms of mere months.

Online education is the inevitable way of the future – better, faster, cheaper, more accessible, more flexible, more versatile, more equitable, vastly more green (no campus footprints – no massive daily campus commutes), vastly superior economies of scale, etc.

There’s no question about it and there’s no hope of dinosaur brick and mortar institutions effectively competing with their highly intelligent, adaptable and far more highly evolved online rivals – even with massive subsidies.

But we nonetheless believe it is VERY important for the best colleges and universities (and their beautiful campuses) to survive and be preserved and cherished in some sort of stripped down, lean and mean form – as intellectual and cultural scholarly sanctuaries, arts and cultural centers, learning and research communities and secular retreats and “monasteries” if nothing else.


Anonymous said...

Ivory Tower 3 cont.

…Perhaps even in some cases as adult and lifelong learning retirement communities:

We do not know exactly how all this re-purposing and preservation process of college campuses might be achieved – but we believe it should somehow be achieved.

There is no more time for all the bullshit in academia. A cataclysm is looming and the very survival of the Academy now hangs in the balance.

Rather than squandering more time and resources on all the typical petty academic campus politics and pseudo-academic and PC nonsense, some real thinkers and visionaries in the world of academia need to figure out how to protect and preserve everything worth saving in the academic arts, humanities, social sciences, hard sciences and other academic areas and then have the cojones to make the tough decisions regarding how to phase out (as humanely and painlessly as possible) all the rest of the MASSIVE amounts of fat and BS (everything that is academically or administratively meaningless, false, useless, irrelevant, redundant, frivolous, obsolete, unsustainable, ineffective, inefficient, toxic, etc.).

This is not about us-them or liberal or conservative – this is about reality. Get real, cut the crap, offer people a face-saving way out or way elsewhere into non-BS sectors of the Academy or society – and then shut down all the BS programs, throw the dead weight overboard and batten down the hatches for the coming deluge – because this one’s going to be a real doozy, folks.

Now, if you will please pardon me, my work constructing the Ivory Tower Ark is done for the day and I have an appointment with destiny on the back deck…

“In a world of steel-eyed death and men who are fighting to be warm – ‘Come in,’ she said, ‘I'll give you shelter from the storm.’”

CNN Documentary – “Ivory Tower: Is College worth the cost?”


Anonymous said...

Let me see if I have this correct. ADMIN, which had previously made contract offers that included (just hitting the highlights): eliminating summer pay entirely, dividing the year into 3 terms, allowing faculty to teach in any two terms, but requiring faculty to conduct office hours during the fall or spring term if they choose to teach in the summer; increases in salary that didn't even cover the cost of the health care for many faculty, effectively asking the lowest paid faculty to accept a new contract with a pay reduction; formulas for merit pay that punished the entire department if one member failed to, for example, post their syllabus online; negotiation meetings spent arguing over who would pay for the distribution of contracts in paper form; disappearances for months at a time apparently in hissy fits because the UTAAUP posted info in the newsletter they didn't like .. this is the same ADMIN that has now allegedly made a "secret" offer that was only shared with chairs and deans and then within a space of a few days filed for fact finding, before this alleged "new" offer could be publicized? And now on a blog which mostly only includes the delusional postings of a pathetic pomo obsessed lunatic, there now appears a flurry of anti-union posts? claiming that the UTAAUP leadership, which was elected by its members, is somehow conniving to withhold a new contract proposal from membership because they want to revenge themselves on the BOT? If, indeed, a new or revised contract proposal was put forth by ADMIN after the membership meetings were held regarding the last one, then it was proposed within days of ADMIN filing for fact finding.

And what a remarkable series of postings here: ADMIN white knights to the rescue! ADMIN chairs and deans to save the day!

Bloggie said...

Agreeing with the lucid poster of November 30, 4:00 am, Bloggie notes that a number of obviously administrative posters/apologists haunt this Blog. Bloggie suspects, based on writing style, that some administrative flunky is actually assigned to this task. What a job! But see how they waste public money? This, despite the administrative mantra that begins, "I don't read the Blog, but...." and then demonstrating detailed knowledge of its contents. Like it or not, and despite the fact that Bloggie allows for what is perhaps a too broad range of commentators, this blog is one of the only informational sources around the university that operates in good faith. We have an administration that routinely deals in misinformation, misdirection and secrecy.

Anonymous said...

Anonymous 4 AM ...
Did you not read Anonymous November 27, 2014 at 9:11 AM? She sounds willing to go to the wall in support of our UT AAUP bargaining team and its game plan. And should it come to that, many of us (students, faculty, alumni and staff) will be standing beside her facing the BOT's final, futile, fusillade.

Anonymous said...

In response to November 30, 2014 at 4:00 AM there was no "secret" offer, it was presented to deans and chairs in early October and then the administration held meetings with UT AAUP team to discuss that offer as their final one. Chairs and deans were told they could share the final administration offer with faculty and many did. The UT AAUP leadership without discussing with the department reps or the members decided to reject that offer resulting in the administration declaring an impasse leading to fact finding. That final offer has been shared and circulated by chairs to faculty, that is how I as a faculty and UT AAUP member got a copy as did many other of my colleagues. Those are the facts and truth and why many UT AAUP members are questioning decisions made by the UT AAUP leadership and lack of any communication or discussions to their members regarding this offer and reasons to reject leading to fact finding. I can understand that the UT AAUP has been treated so poorly during these negotiations and with some crazy proposals put on the table, but LJ and SS are now gone and a better offer was made, not great and not perfect but no offer ever is. Yet the UT AAUP choose to be silent to their members on the matter, as a due paying 20+ year UT AAUP member I am asking why they have not talked to the members and questioning their leadership.

Anonymous said...

To be clear admin made their final offer to UTAAUP in mid October and after meetings with the admin, UTAAUP leadership decided to reject that offer and admin asked for fact finding. UTAAUP did not discuss with membership the offer or why to reject when they could have easily done so with meetings or email. UTAAUP has failed its members by not informing them of the offer or reason to reject it or give members chance to vote on it. UTAAUP forced us into fact finding.

Anonymous said...

"forced US into fact finding" - gotta love vague pronouns that smell of Freudian slips. The administration opted for fact-finding, and the UTAAUP certainly didn't force them into it, or "us," whomever that is, since if the "new" offer is accurate it would cost the administration more than the existing contract - or, in other words, so long as the old contract remains in place, the admin saves money. This was also why for years UTAAUP has rejected the offers of the administration, because faculty, as a whole, were better off with the old contract than any of the proposed new ones. What's more, the post from the UTAAUP states that the new administration has declared that if it (the administration) does not agree with the fact findings, it will simply impose a contract on faculty. Now if anyone would like to dispute the accuracy of the statements in the UTAAUP's email, and especially the one I've just paraphrased, please do so, but otherwise at least read it first, before making comments that are contradicted by the original post. Finally, speaking on behalf of all faculty who were at the meetings to discuss the newish contract proposal, there was general outrage at the proposal after the truckload of money that was given to Jacobs. Faculty finally seem to be aware that the BOT has money stuffed in its mattresses for half brained and doomed business schemes, consultants, and golden parachutes and so it can damn well use some of it for a decent new contract.

Anonymous said...

If the UTAAUP had accepted the last offer from the admin (see post of November 28, 2014 at 2:45 PM) we would not be in fact finding. But as members we would never know since that offer was not discussed with us. And fact finding has never been bidding on either party, we at UT have been down that road in the past if you remember. And again I ask as a UTAAUP member, were the conditions of the last admin offer of Mid October ever presented to the members for discussion or decision to reject resulting in fact finding? And even with increased health care costs are members better staying in current contract with no raises after a 5% raise in year 1, which more than covers increased health insurance costs? I choose to dispute the UTAAUP email that does not make it clear to us members that admin elected for fact finding only after UTAAUP rejected their final offer.

Anonymous said...

Nothing has changed, merely the rhetoric has been adjusted.

Anonymous said...

If the UTAAUP leaders are so egregiously out of touch with the membership, wouldn't you all have voted in new leaders by this point?
Some of this complaining reminds me of my union days, where various members complained about the union around the water cooler but never availed themselves of relatively simple ways to influence the union's bargaining strategy.

Anonymous said...

The out of touch issue really centers around the last few months and lack of communication regarding offers, perhaps not as much over recent years including during last UT AAUP leadership elections. But you do point about another long standing issue - vast majority of UT AAUP simply do not give a care, many never have, UT AAUP is made up a few who continue to serve in leadership and a small number of vocal members. Most never come to meetings and pay little attention to contract issues. When average UT full time tenured faculty are many are teaching 2-3 courses a year and making $89,000 with 9 months on campus (and often in the office only infrequently during those 9 months) and a pretty decent benefit package, compared to many others in public and private sector, they are simply cruising along with no care in the world about their work environment.

Anonymous said...

What percentage of the faculty are actually members of the union?

Anonymous said...

Until one of these alleged disaffected UTAAUP members posts the secret "new contract offer," or provides more details about it these posts are just so much disinformation. Or someone just ask their friendly Dean or Chairperson to send a copy of the contract offer that benevolent UHall sent them in its overflowing generosity - I asked the chair of my department about this and he didn't have a clue what I was talking about. "Administration doesn't negotiate thru me" was his response and looked at me like I was drooling spaghetti thru my nose. My personal feeling is, failing in Bill 5, the admins have now decided a ground war via blogs is the next best strategy using paid trolls.

Anonymous said...

At the regular monthly meeting with the Provost hosting Deans and Chairs on Weds October 8th they were give copies of the final administration offer that the administration had given UT AAUP and met with the union to discuss that offer later that same week. Details on this offer have already been posted by UT AAUP members on this very board topic. This was not a "secret" offer and many chairs gave copies of it to their faculty: year 1 = $2000 increase to base + 2.7% both across the board, year 2 and 3 each = 1% increase, plus potential 2% each year tied to enrollment increase, member health insurance cost share increases to 20% January 2015 (same as every other UT employee). Sorry if your chair was not at the meeting or was not given a copy, but it exists and was openly shared, but no follow-up information or meetings on this offer by UT AAUP to its members. Go ahead and ask UT AAUP leadership for a copy, they have it and they work for you. The confusion here is the result of lack of detailed communication from the UT AAUP leadership leading up to and since this last offer which UT AAUP rejected without even discussing with department reps or the members, and upon that rejection the administration declared they would go to fact finding (that hearing could happen any day now). I am not saying it was a great offer but without any discussion UTAAUP members are left in the dark as to status of contract and why we ended up in fact finding (Lecturer contract fact finding hearing was scheduled for yesterday).

Anonymous said...

I seriously hope the majority of these post ARE NOT from faculty members. If so, we are in trouble. If you really think the administration is using paid trolls in blogs to attack the faculty and/or UTAAUP interests then I suggest you are a bunch (or is it really just a handful?) of paranoid, clueless, idiots. I'm sorry. I know that is harsh, but damn it things are changing for the better. If you can't see it and participate positively than get the hell out of the way.

If you're not part of the solution, you are part of the problem.

Fuddbuster said...

Productive teaching/research faculty trust their AAUP Union Reps to bargain well and bargain hard (see Anonymous, November 27, 9:11, above). Professors don't have time to be at the bargaining table themselves or to second-guess the dedicated and selfless sacrifices of the members of their bargaining team.

Productive professors need and want to be left alone to fulfill their contracted responsibilities and to feel good about having chosen their profession -- even though the pay is not all that great.

UT administration's dirty tricks that deploy trolls to post comments on this blog site that attempt to drive wedges between faculty, between union members and union reps., between professors and students, etc., are transparent, often hilariously inept, and overall dithpicable.

Anonymous said...

Actually many faculty have questions and concerns regarding the contract, they would like to know the status and latest offer, and why UTAAUP leadership rejected the last offer. This administration has been transparent by providing information to chairs which could be shared with faculty but the UTAAUP has provided no information or updates and some of us UTAAUP members would like to know more than that we were forced into fact finding or that the last offer was "not good enough"

Anonymous said...

1:36 AM: You need therapy. You are obviously delusional and paranoid.

This blog has lost touch with reality in the past few months.

Anonymous said...

YES! Amen! ^^^^

Fuddbuster said...

To Anonymous 4:27 Thanks for the enthusiastic backup!

Anonymous said...

The union has an update on negotiations. Back to the bargaining table with a mediator- there was no explanation of why the administration didn't pursue fact finding. And I don't know what the difference or implications of the two, fact finding and bargaining with a mediator are. As I understand it, neither are binding. I can only imagine fact finding might reveal even more administration expenditures. There's also a comparison between the August and September proposals, but I couldn't figure out how to paste them here.

Here's the last bit from the email (the comparison of administration salary increases during the period faculty salary was frozen is particularly telling, even more so when you remember the Jacobs plan to dock faculty salaries due to the alleged "crisis"):

"As we reported in our two members' meetings in early September 2014, the majority of members responding to our survey about the BOT August 2014 proposal indicated that they would not be willing to accept a contract with such provisions.

Faculty hired since 2010 have seen no raises since their arrival. Faculty members who have devoted their careers to UT have had no raises in 4 years because the Jacobs' Administration, with the BOT's blessing, was determined to beat down the union.

On the other hand, the BOT has allowed administrators to richly reward each other. In fiscal year 2013-2014, as the Administration continued to drag out our negotiations, the BOT approved over $3 million in pay increases for approximately 240 individuals.

More specifically, the BOT gave the VP/General Counsel a $29,040 raise or a 15% increase; moved an Executive Associate Dean to an Associate Vice Provost position---at an additional cost of $35,000 or a 23.3% increase; promoted an Associate Dean to an Associate Provost with a salary increase of over $41,399 or a 40% increase; promoted a VP for Medical Affairs and Associate Dean to Chief Operating & Clinical Officer and Senior Associate Dean - accompanied by a $45,000 raise or a 14% increase;
promoted the Associate Dean of the College of Medicine to Interim Dean -added cost of $102,770 or a 65% increase.

If UT's budget can handle these kinds of increases, it can afford to recognize the hard work of the faculty.

The $3 million in pay increases to anyone but union faculty would fund close to a 6% raise for our 600 bargaining unit members whose total salaries were approximately $51 million in FY2014.

Our UT-AAUP 2008-2011 contract provided 3% annual raises. No raises in 4 years at 3% of $51 million amounts to $6.12 million. Administrators have had this money long enough; it's time to share."