Editor,
It is difficult for me to believe what just took place over the last week. On Tuesday, March 28th, (acting) President Abdallah held a town hall where he informed us that furloughs are on the table. He also let us know that we need to recruit more students in order to have pay increases to offset the rise in insurance premiums and, maybe, prevent furloughs. He said this in spite of the University spending at least $1 million in a marketing/rebranding campaign last year – to recruit said students.
How many did we get? Is that investment paying off? If so, why are you urging staff, who already have full-time jobs, to do the job of our marketing department?
I wrote to President Abdallah to mention that furloughs will hurt the most vulnerable among us. Those that are one paycheck away from homelessness could realize that fate after suffering from a furlough day. Those that are suffering from food insecurity, because they are making choices between rent, medication and food, could go hungry from suffering from a furlough day. It is the same scenario, when one’s paycheck decreases because insurance premiums increase.
In the town hall, President Abdallah said that when an employee leaves and UNM gives existing staff members their job duties to perform instead of hiring replacements, he compensates them fairly. I was so happy to hear this for people in the president’s office because that is not what is happening on the ground at UNM.
For example, in July, when the Women’s Studies administrative assistant left for another job, an existing employee agreed to perform half of her job duties and that employee did receive a small in-range adjustment. When the committee in the Provost’s office denied the request to hire a new assistant, the remaining half of her job duties were given to the same employee but an additional, temporary in-range adjustment was denied. We are talking about an in-range adjustment of $2,900.
My department has been trying to hire a part-time instructor to teach a one-credit hour course, to no avail. The University denied this request because it does not have $1,200 to pay this employee to teach a class that will benefit students.
Now, we learn that our men’s basketball coach is fired because he is under-performing but we must not let him go out into the dark with nothing – we must let him go into the light with $1.3 million, from a department that is already $1.5 million in the red. We cannot afford to give small pay raises to offset increased insurance premiums. We must impose draconian furlough days because we are suffering from less state funding. We cannot afford a $2,900 temporary in-range adjustment for an employee who has increased her workload two-fold. There is not $1,200 to hire an instructor to teach a class.
However, we can certainly afford to pay an underperforming employee $1.3 million to leave the University. I would love to leave the University for $1.3 million, but that is not my reality, nor is it the reality of your everyday University staff member. We must be the ones that pay for Coach Neal to have a severance agreement of a deal to leave because he is under-performing.
When is the administration going to stop giving coaches golden parachutes? When is the administration going to stop giving our highest paid employees – think (former) President Frank – cherry buyouts when their services are no longer required by UNM, but their contracts are still in place?
My suggestion is that the highest paid among us suffer the furlough days. That will save the University more money than imposing these draconian furloughs on our most vulnerable. I also suggest that the highest paid among us willingly give up some salary in order to increase the pay of our most vulnerable to offset the increased insurance premiums. Will the administration step up and do the right thing for all employees, or only the highly paid ones?
Loyola Chastain
Staff member
Get content from The Daily Lobo delivered to your inbox
