I have been saying for some time that the University?s ?management flexibility? push is wrong-headed, because what we are truly lacking is money, not flexibility.
I would like to thank Associate Vice Chancellor Bruce Runberg for demonstrating the point in his letter in the July 12 Daily Tar Heel.
Mr. Runberg says that the 4 percent raises granted to some housekeepers last March were limited by state rules. But the in-range increase system allows for much larger raises than that.
We see the root of the problem in Mr. Runberg?s statement that the raises ?required reallocation of funds from other important University priorities.?
Which ?other important University priorities? went unfunded in order to grant these raises? And which ?other important University priorities? took precedence over giving a larger raise to housekeepers?
If the problem were truly a lack of flexibility, then we wouldn?t have to starve one important priority to feed another. The problem is a lack of funding ? the state has simply not provided the money needed for the University to pay a living wage to its lowest-paid employees and to meet its other obligations.
All the flexibility in the world won?t solve that problem.
But it does highlight the dangers inherent in ?management flexibility?.
If granted, the University administration will have the power to channel its limited funds to its highest institutional priorities. And staff employees know that they have never been among the University?s highest institutional priorities, except for those rare times when they get fed up enough to become rude, disruptive and impossible to ignore.
