About those 'outrageous' UNC raises? They're not
Published October 7, 2015
by G. A. Sywassink, UNC Board of Governors on personnel and tenure, published in Charlotte Observer, October 2, 2015.
A great university must have great faculty and outstanding leadership. Our students deserve no less. Attracting the best and brightest talent requires that we offer competitive compensation. The Oct. 1 Viewpoint column by Michael Behrent and John Steen (“An outrageous payhike for UNC administrators”)misconstrued recent actions by the UNC Board of Governors.
Last month, the board adopted broader salary ranges for a variety of senior leadership positions. Those ranges are based on market data from peer institutions and designed to enable the University to attract top talent from the higher education, public, and private sectors. No accompanying salary increases were approved.
While there may be some shock value in seizing on range maximums for selected positions, very few individuals will ever come close to those compensation levels at any point in their careers.
The UNC system and our campuses have limited resources, but setting salary ranges that reflect the best national data available provides important context and needed flexibility as our president and chancellors seek to recruit and retain high-demand talent.
October 7, 2015 at 9:54 am
Norm Kelly says:
However, the point of the original editorial remains.
First, there are way too many top-level managers within the higher education establishment.
Second, why is it that so many public sector employees should be ALLOWED to have salaries so much higher than those who pay those salaries? Libs run higher education. Heck, we all know libs run all of the government education monopoly. It's also libs that whine (i know, constantly!) private sector top-level management makes too much when compared to regular employees. Whenever ANYONE questions why libs rule in opposition to their own whines, libs revert to whining! For some reason, we are not allowed to wonder, question, why libs make up rules that are contrary to their public whines.
Remember when Fanny & Freddie were destroying the housing market? The top guy at this government organization was making a killing on his salary, at the same time that it 'appeared' he was having work done on his private home without paying for it - some sort of quid-pro-quo for the businesses that were doing the work and being rewarded by the government with other over-paid jobs. It was libs at the central planner level that defended the overly outrageous salary this guy was making. They made every excuse in the book, and insisted that a comparison between private sector executive pay and public sector 'executive' pay were invalid.
Funny how libs always try to find a way to defend their actions. Usually with lots of whining and nonsense talk. Comparing how libs run things with how they DEMAND that others run things usually shows libs work contrary to their own plans. Kinda like central planner whiners, like the current occupier, demanding that women receive equal pay for equal work in the private sector, yet refuse to do it within their own ranks. And NO ONE, absolutely no one, is allowed to point out their hypocrisy.
But, since the education establishment only raised the amount someone COULD get paid, but isn't paying this amount, and they CLAIM no one is likely to make this amount, then it's a useless argument. They only raised the amount someone COULD get paid in order to make the job look more attractive to possible candidates. Since we are told that it's 'unlikely' anyone would actually be paid this much, we are foolish to worry about it.
Until the first person makes this much, and the transaction is buried because it's a private personnel matter that can't be discussed. Another scheme swept under the rug!
