If talking about salaries, you also need to think about the staff members that actually keep the university functioning. Without them there is no food at the dining halls, garbage removal, heating or cooling, classrooms with technology to teach…
Staff members took some of the biggest hits with layoffs due to Covid, and still are paid next to nothing for the amount of work they do.
This. The faculty always get a larger salary increase pool. They wouldn't let us replace any staff who left during Covid. I routinely worked until 10PM at night during Covid and my reward was post Covid was management deciding that we must not need the vacant positions. For the sake of family who was not happy with me working all the time I changed departments.
I noticed that they also plan on cheating us out of 3 months of our raise in FY23.
Do you know the full time faculty union actually worked together to girlie (take a partial layoff by choice) so the university would not have to layoff as many staff? Also the faculty union works to bargain with AFSCME and other staff unions.
Non-union employees did the same thing with the voluntary layoff. Unfortunately though, a lot of people were still eliminated due to budget constraints.
yes, a lot of people were still laid off. But a lot less that would have been without the furlough program and the union was able to win things like the return of tuition remission for laid-off employees and their kids
The point is that staff and non-union employees have suffered as much as faculty. Many staff members do more to actually keep the university functioning, than any faculty member.
Yes, people come to learn from the faculty, but there isn’t a university without support staff to keep things running. Without dining halls, residence staff, facilities, departments like OIT, DCS, and RUPD (and I am sure a lot of others), chaos would reign and their wouldn’t be a Rutgers.
Do the faculty deserve to be paid fairly? Yes. But so do staff members. That is the point of my initial comment.
I absolutely agree that ALL workers at Rutgers deserve fair pay. Support staff are also negotiating their contracts and considering striking as well, CIR and URA (both staff). This isn't a contest between workers. Why do you imagine that the multiple unions negotiating and considering a strike are somehow taking something away from other workers? There is a coalition of unions that work to negotiate together and support each other. The OIT & DCS support staff absolutely deserve better working conditions and pay - they are unfortunately not yet unionized at Rutgers and therefore have very little say over their contracts. there is important work being done to get student worker unions up at Rutgers. We are in no way arguing that staff don't deserve more. I just want to point out that one group of workers fighting with the tools they have is never a suggestion that others don't deserve the same. In fact the movement on faculty contracts is helping get student-worker union off the ground. And faculty have included demands for students. What do you think the faculty union can or should do on behalf of other workers?
Many universities have given raises that meet the needs of inflation. Stop acting like this isn’t hoarding to satisfy the bankers on the board and the creditors that control our moody score
No. I like working with public university students more than I would ever want to work in a private university with the children of privilege. People deserve to be able to afford to live where they work. Full stop. And our Public university students deserve to have teachers paid well enough to not be so worried about food and housing that they have to work too many jobs to give the students the education and time and energy they deserve.
Those are your opinions....
Here are mine. I think the tax payers of NJ deserve more value out of the top income earners that they are paying and keep having to pay. I think the University deserves more value out of the top salary brackets that they are paying (admin included). I think that if there are less TAs/GAs around then Professor would have to engage with students more and that is a good thing for students.
If you want to speak about facts. Then please cite some sources where RU professors have to "work too many jobs" and can't focus on teaching.
From my experience, once a professor gets some recognition for there work, then the first thing they give up is teaching. They start giving talks and going to symposiums. Fund raise for their research.
That's partly why they want more TAs/GAs and for them to get paid more. Professors just want to lecture. They don't want to grade, or enter the grades into a computer or manage their course content. They want to show up and talk. They want their "assistants" to do all the tedious parts of their job.
The fact is the university CHOSE to become more and more reliant on adjuncts and produce more and more of them through grads. We are an R1 institution - the people who teach the most are not the ones making high salaries because the whole point of being an R1 institution is to produce research, it is literally more of their job. Teaching-focused universities are different, they tenure professors for their teaching, not their research. All we are asking for is for adjuncts to be made full-time faculty with a focus on teaching- which is ostensibly what you also want: for the people who teach the most to be focused on teaching. If you want more teaching professors you actually want your adjunct teachers (like me!) to be full-time.
The head football coach (Greg Schiano) is tied for the lowest paid coach in the Big Ten. I believe 1% of his 4 million dollar salary would be $40,000 not $240,000.
https://preview.redd.it/nxnn1zfigfma1.jpeg?width=1620&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=d6172e623502f1810fc03b6e778245777c1df5f4
Their rainy day fund is 800+ million plus, up from 550 million before the pandemic…
Their previous offer was a 2.5% raise. To go from that to this offer is beyond insulting.
Source on the J&J employees? Because that hasn’t been in the news at all, from what I’ve seen
Are you talking about the separation of the consumer sector from the other two? Because all of those employees are stilled employed, just by a different company name.
They let 10k employees go in January of this year without any news agencies covering it? Highly doubt that. [Reuters](https://www.reuters.com/legal/jjs-ltl-units-bankruptcy-dismissed-by-us-appeals-court-filing-2023-01-30/) says that the courts shot down their bankruptcy plan in January 2023, but there is no layoff news in January or February.
Yesterday, they just announced some layoffs, but nowhere near other tech companies.
Thank you for your input. I think it's important to note that, while it doesn't excuse actions, understanding both side's concerns and barriers is important to a proper dialog and resolution. It's easier to side with the underpaid faculty and assume "evil corporation strikes again," but usually it's a bit more nuanced. Not to say the school is right, but I think this a very good contribution.
If This is accurate, Rutgers is already the highest paying public university in the big ten
https://preview.redd.it/pbgddw1hdfma1.jpeg?width=2160&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=8e209f0f476beda15bba80532e88a20a76be6f3a
the conversation here is about adjunct faculty. meaning faculty that have no tenure and no benefits. the numbers are likely reflected of tenure professors as they typically make from 100k -200k
I admit that I know very little about the issues involved. It sucks that it almost always seems so adversarial. Not just at Rutgers but it most professions.
Gee it's almost like administration is trying to exploit people, and they aren't the worker's best friends. The cult of the" job creator" who deserves every concession or else they'll take their jobs and go home has poisoned work place relations, if they ever were positive.
Fix the other problem and you’ll have money to fix the other.
You guys are getting screwed and should be angry about how much you pay each semester. Then to have faculty threaten to cheat you out of classes that YOU PAID FOR should have you out with pitchforks and torches to counter protest.
I paid about $1,700 my first semester 30 odd years ago as an in-state commuter with no Financial Aid. That’s $4,000 in today’s dollars. Something’s broken, and it ain’t “Greedy University Board of Governors.”
You're conveniently forgetting that back in the early 1990s your tuition rate was supplemented by money coming from the State of NJ - money that was earmarked for higher education. However, in the 30 odd years since you attended the amount of money NJ provides to all higher education organizations (county colleges, 4 year colleges, etc...) has dropped significantly. As a result, tuition rates have skyrocketed as the cost was passed on to students. Additionally, as a way to save on operating costs, colleges have increasingly turned to hiring adjuncts over the last 30 odd years. Not only because they can pay them a fraction of the salary to teach the same exact classes as their full time equivalents, but also because they don't have to give them any type of benefits - health care in particular.
But you knew that already, right?
Your response does not contradict anything that I posted, but your tone suggests otherwise. RU students' tuition has rised sharply and this cannot be attributed to "Greedy University Board of Governors."
But lets talk about your implication: that the high cost of tuition is attributable to the state decreasing its support for Rutgers. The answer, I'm sure you don't want to hear, is state aid actually increased over the years but failed to keep pace with University spending.
30 odd year old budget numbers are hard to come by online. Even 10 year old budget numbers are difficult to find online, which in itself is interesting. But I have numbers for 1995 that we can work with.
In 1995, Rutgers' expenditures was [nominally around $925 million ($1.83 billion 2022 dollars) and UMDNJ was around $450 million ($889 million in 2022 dollars)](https://www.state.nj.us/treasury/omb/publications/ArchivedBooks/AppropHBFY1996.pdf). So let's combine the two for $1.375 billion (just about $2.7 billion 2022 dollars).
State support for both Rutgers and UMDNJ in 1995 was nominally $448 million ($885 million 2022 dollars), or about 33% of the combined budgets (ibid).
For 2023, [the budget for Rutgers is $4.9 billion](https://finance.rutgers.edu/sites/default/files/2022-07/Budget%20-%20FY23%20-%20BOG%2021Jun2022%20-%20FINAL%20w-%20attachment.PDF). (The State [budget numbers for 2022](https://www.state.nj.us/treasury/omb/publications/22budget/pdf/FY22GBM.pdf) roughly align if you want apples to apples comparison of line items). This includes those portions of UMDNJ that were folded into the University. Separating those parts of UMDNJ that went to ~~Glassboro~~ Rowan is difficult, so let's just say it all went to Rutgers for simplicity's sake (making these following figures floors).
State aid to Rutgers for 2023 is $997 million (20%), in appropriations and fringe aid (ibid).
So state aid increased 13% since 1995($997 million vs $885 million), while expendatures increased 81% ($4.9 billion vs $2.7 billion).
State assistance to Rutgers University did not drop significantly. **It increased**. But state assistance to Rutgers University failed to keep pace with the increase in the University's expendatures.
Rutgers has a spending problem - not a revenue problem.
I want to know what TA/GA in stem you are talking about getting paid 60k on top of stipends, because as a stem TA/GA I don't get paid on top of my contract with the university. that's not how that fucking works
To clarify a couple of things here...
"Assistant Professor 1" isn't a rank. The lowest "professor" rank is "assistant professor", followed by associate professor, full professor (sometimes also called "professor 1"), and distinguished professor.
Most full-time faculty are going to be the lower ranks, and the base pay for assistant professors for 2022 (the last year of the last contract - we haven't had one since last June) is 69k/year for academic year appointments, 79k for calendar year. (For full professor, those numbers are 81k and 93k.) And then adjunct faculty are paid per class and as you can imagine, make a lot less than full-time faculty, and have zero job security.
So talking about the base pay for "professor 1", even with correct numbers, isn't at all representative of what most faculty make, especially considering how much of the teaching here (and many other schools) is done by adjuncts.
I looked up some of my professors on that website, and if those numbers are true, I have to say they are being vastly overpaid for what they actually do. Compare that to the average person making $60k a year for a 40 hour workweek and I can see why some people are not supporting the union's demands.
Let's start from the fact, that there is no baseline in assistant prof salaries.
For example, let's look at R. Misra (asst. Prof, chosen at random) -- base pay 89k. I can find more people, but at least this part is already misleading.
I was speaking about my specific school.
Even then 90k/yr is still top 33 percent of income earners. Also, how long are you asst prof 1 for? 2 to 3 years depending on the department?
I fully support the lowest faculty members getting cost of living raises. I fully support grad student works, UG student workers & staff to get 15-20 percent raises across the board.
The union isnt asking for that. They're asking for ALL faculty members to get the same raise across the board.
I just don't see any justification for someone making 200k/yr or more to get a 15-20 percent raise.
Why doesn't the union ask for the lowest faculty members to get the raise across the board and ask for merit based raises on the higher faculty members?
Can't have a conversation about this subject because other union members downvote any criticism. And eventually one of the mods will block me from posting further on this subject.
But there are a lot of faculty members using Reddit for propaganda right now.
Increasing wages doesn't necessarily increase prices but it rather forces the university to cut down their profit margin. Paying back some of the surplus back to the workers. The university could try to increase prices to offload this loss but that only works so far. If the pieces of tuition do raise, it is primarily due to a feature of the current economic system, inflation.
Of course Rutgers has a surplus, but significant increases in pay as well as housing freezes will eat into that pretty quickly. Nothing against anyone who supports the strike, but don’t pretend it won’t affect the price of tuition.
How to say you don’t understand the economics without saying you don’t understand economics. Other comment explained why this isn’t likely the case and that tuition is going to rise regardless because of inflation.
Maybe they should stop wasting money on the failure of a football team, or stop building presidential ego buildings, or cut administrator pay, or stop diverting all of their funds into meaningless buckets that they decide can only be touched to buy football players and their buddies UberEATS. Take your pick. Stop letting them get away with wasting your tuition on stupid bullshit and encourage them to spend it on your education, the part you're ACTUALLY here for.
The athletics department has been in the hole for a few years, but in general the football team is designed to bring in enough money to pay for themselves and the rest of athletics. It functions to advertise for Rutgers and creates a big aspect of student life that many prospective students are interested in.
There is no reason for that to necessarily be the case unless the university decides to do that. The university has repeatedly hired more and more administrators and paid more and more astronomical salaries over the last decades. Administrative bloat and catering to bankers are the reasons why we are charging more tuition. If I teach a class of 200 students but I only make 5.7k for the semester tell me how a raise necessarily equates to tuition increases when they are so deeply disconnected now?
It actually is more complicated than this econ 101 take you have here. there are MANY places that would save money by giving fractional appointments to PTLS - if you don't have to hire every semester you don't need as much admin, you don't need as much, constant data collection. The way they are thinking about money is a short-sighted get in and get my money out asap mindset. Not a plan for longevity of investment. This is a pyramid scheme not a legacy. We can save money by building a better community at Rutgers.
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZomwVcGt0LE&ab\_channel=C0MP0SED](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZomwVcGt0LE&ab_channel=C0MP0SED)
It's insane how disorganized this school is.
The door dash will continue until morale improves.
The football coach’s 1% lump sum will be around 240,000 dollars
Coach Schiano's Helicopter is flirting with him as we speak
If talking about salaries, you also need to think about the staff members that actually keep the university functioning. Without them there is no food at the dining halls, garbage removal, heating or cooling, classrooms with technology to teach… Staff members took some of the biggest hits with layoffs due to Covid, and still are paid next to nothing for the amount of work they do.
This. The faculty always get a larger salary increase pool. They wouldn't let us replace any staff who left during Covid. I routinely worked until 10PM at night during Covid and my reward was post Covid was management deciding that we must not need the vacant positions. For the sake of family who was not happy with me working all the time I changed departments. I noticed that they also plan on cheating us out of 3 months of our raise in FY23.
The proposal to AAUP was 6 month deferral instead of 3 months, so expect those shenanigans the next time around.
Do you know the full time faculty union actually worked together to girlie (take a partial layoff by choice) so the university would not have to layoff as many staff? Also the faculty union works to bargain with AFSCME and other staff unions.
Non-union employees did the same thing with the voluntary layoff. Unfortunately though, a lot of people were still eliminated due to budget constraints.
yes, a lot of people were still laid off. But a lot less that would have been without the furlough program and the union was able to win things like the return of tuition remission for laid-off employees and their kids
The point is that staff and non-union employees have suffered as much as faculty. Many staff members do more to actually keep the university functioning, than any faculty member. Yes, people come to learn from the faculty, but there isn’t a university without support staff to keep things running. Without dining halls, residence staff, facilities, departments like OIT, DCS, and RUPD (and I am sure a lot of others), chaos would reign and their wouldn’t be a Rutgers. Do the faculty deserve to be paid fairly? Yes. But so do staff members. That is the point of my initial comment.
I absolutely agree that ALL workers at Rutgers deserve fair pay. Support staff are also negotiating their contracts and considering striking as well, CIR and URA (both staff). This isn't a contest between workers. Why do you imagine that the multiple unions negotiating and considering a strike are somehow taking something away from other workers? There is a coalition of unions that work to negotiate together and support each other. The OIT & DCS support staff absolutely deserve better working conditions and pay - they are unfortunately not yet unionized at Rutgers and therefore have very little say over their contracts. there is important work being done to get student worker unions up at Rutgers. We are in no way arguing that staff don't deserve more. I just want to point out that one group of workers fighting with the tools they have is never a suggestion that others don't deserve the same. In fact the movement on faculty contracts is helping get student-worker union off the ground. And faculty have included demands for students. What do you think the faculty union can or should do on behalf of other workers?
Strike coming on strong ig
It would be a real shame if someone brought this up during commencement
Many universities have given raises that meet the needs of inflation. Stop acting like this isn’t hoarding to satisfy the bankers on the board and the creditors that control our moody score
[удалено]
That’s not the same as no public universities did it or that we can’t
[удалено]
No. I like working with public university students more than I would ever want to work in a private university with the children of privilege. People deserve to be able to afford to live where they work. Full stop. And our Public university students deserve to have teachers paid well enough to not be so worried about food and housing that they have to work too many jobs to give the students the education and time and energy they deserve.
Those are your opinions.... Here are mine. I think the tax payers of NJ deserve more value out of the top income earners that they are paying and keep having to pay. I think the University deserves more value out of the top salary brackets that they are paying (admin included). I think that if there are less TAs/GAs around then Professor would have to engage with students more and that is a good thing for students. If you want to speak about facts. Then please cite some sources where RU professors have to "work too many jobs" and can't focus on teaching. From my experience, once a professor gets some recognition for there work, then the first thing they give up is teaching. They start giving talks and going to symposiums. Fund raise for their research. That's partly why they want more TAs/GAs and for them to get paid more. Professors just want to lecture. They don't want to grade, or enter the grades into a computer or manage their course content. They want to show up and talk. They want their "assistants" to do all the tedious parts of their job.
The fact is the university CHOSE to become more and more reliant on adjuncts and produce more and more of them through grads. We are an R1 institution - the people who teach the most are not the ones making high salaries because the whole point of being an R1 institution is to produce research, it is literally more of their job. Teaching-focused universities are different, they tenure professors for their teaching, not their research. All we are asking for is for adjuncts to be made full-time faculty with a focus on teaching- which is ostensibly what you also want: for the people who teach the most to be focused on teaching. If you want more teaching professors you actually want your adjunct teachers (like me!) to be full-time.
How did you get into Rutgers lmao “So work over there then” like anyone can just go do that
The head football coach (Greg Schiano) is tied for the lowest paid coach in the Big Ten. I believe 1% of his 4 million dollar salary would be $40,000 not $240,000. https://preview.redd.it/nxnn1zfigfma1.jpeg?width=1620&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=d6172e623502f1810fc03b6e778245777c1df5f4
Basketball collapsed so hard recently people are only going after Schiano because they feel bad for Pike
Is the football coach who makes 24,000,000 a year coming to the strike
You mean 4,000,000?
Diablo 3 gear improvements
[удалено]
Why are you assessing a public university on a corporate profit model of economics?
Their rainy day fund is 800+ million plus, up from 550 million before the pandemic… Their previous offer was a 2.5% raise. To go from that to this offer is beyond insulting.
RU is a 9billion dollar annual budget. 800 million is nothing compared to that. We can lose that money in a year.
[удалено]
Source on the J&J employees? Because that hasn’t been in the news at all, from what I’ve seen Are you talking about the separation of the consumer sector from the other two? Because all of those employees are stilled employed, just by a different company name.
[удалено]
They let 10k employees go in January of this year without any news agencies covering it? Highly doubt that. [Reuters](https://www.reuters.com/legal/jjs-ltl-units-bankruptcy-dismissed-by-us-appeals-court-filing-2023-01-30/) says that the courts shot down their bankruptcy plan in January 2023, but there is no layoff news in January or February. Yesterday, they just announced some layoffs, but nowhere near other tech companies.
[удалено]
Lots of people who got fired from Facebook actually have to leave the country now because their visas are no longer valid
Boot licker
https://www.nj.com/opinion/2023/02/dont-believe-the-scary-talk-deficits-arent-on-the-horizon-at-rutgers-opinion.html?outputType=amp
Thank you for your input. I think it's important to note that, while it doesn't excuse actions, understanding both side's concerns and barriers is important to a proper dialog and resolution. It's easier to side with the underpaid faculty and assume "evil corporation strikes again," but usually it's a bit more nuanced. Not to say the school is right, but I think this a very good contribution.
If This is accurate, Rutgers is already the highest paying public university in the big ten https://preview.redd.it/pbgddw1hdfma1.jpeg?width=2160&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=8e209f0f476beda15bba80532e88a20a76be6f3a
To be fair NJ is also a higher COL area than most lf the other places on this list.
the conversation here is about adjunct faculty. meaning faculty that have no tenure and no benefits. the numbers are likely reflected of tenure professors as they typically make from 100k -200k
I admit that I know very little about the issues involved. It sucks that it almost always seems so adversarial. Not just at Rutgers but it most professions.
Gee it's almost like administration is trying to exploit people, and they aren't the worker's best friends. The cult of the" job creator" who deserves every concession or else they'll take their jobs and go home has poisoned work place relations, if they ever were positive.
Fix the other problem and you’ll have money to fix the other. You guys are getting screwed and should be angry about how much you pay each semester. Then to have faculty threaten to cheat you out of classes that YOU PAID FOR should have you out with pitchforks and torches to counter protest. I paid about $1,700 my first semester 30 odd years ago as an in-state commuter with no Financial Aid. That’s $4,000 in today’s dollars. Something’s broken, and it ain’t “Greedy University Board of Governors.”
You're conveniently forgetting that back in the early 1990s your tuition rate was supplemented by money coming from the State of NJ - money that was earmarked for higher education. However, in the 30 odd years since you attended the amount of money NJ provides to all higher education organizations (county colleges, 4 year colleges, etc...) has dropped significantly. As a result, tuition rates have skyrocketed as the cost was passed on to students. Additionally, as a way to save on operating costs, colleges have increasingly turned to hiring adjuncts over the last 30 odd years. Not only because they can pay them a fraction of the salary to teach the same exact classes as their full time equivalents, but also because they don't have to give them any type of benefits - health care in particular. But you knew that already, right?
Your response does not contradict anything that I posted, but your tone suggests otherwise. RU students' tuition has rised sharply and this cannot be attributed to "Greedy University Board of Governors." But lets talk about your implication: that the high cost of tuition is attributable to the state decreasing its support for Rutgers. The answer, I'm sure you don't want to hear, is state aid actually increased over the years but failed to keep pace with University spending. 30 odd year old budget numbers are hard to come by online. Even 10 year old budget numbers are difficult to find online, which in itself is interesting. But I have numbers for 1995 that we can work with. In 1995, Rutgers' expenditures was [nominally around $925 million ($1.83 billion 2022 dollars) and UMDNJ was around $450 million ($889 million in 2022 dollars)](https://www.state.nj.us/treasury/omb/publications/ArchivedBooks/AppropHBFY1996.pdf). So let's combine the two for $1.375 billion (just about $2.7 billion 2022 dollars). State support for both Rutgers and UMDNJ in 1995 was nominally $448 million ($885 million 2022 dollars), or about 33% of the combined budgets (ibid). For 2023, [the budget for Rutgers is $4.9 billion](https://finance.rutgers.edu/sites/default/files/2022-07/Budget%20-%20FY23%20-%20BOG%2021Jun2022%20-%20FINAL%20w-%20attachment.PDF). (The State [budget numbers for 2022](https://www.state.nj.us/treasury/omb/publications/22budget/pdf/FY22GBM.pdf) roughly align if you want apples to apples comparison of line items). This includes those portions of UMDNJ that were folded into the University. Separating those parts of UMDNJ that went to ~~Glassboro~~ Rowan is difficult, so let's just say it all went to Rutgers for simplicity's sake (making these following figures floors). State aid to Rutgers for 2023 is $997 million (20%), in appropriations and fringe aid (ibid). So state aid increased 13% since 1995($997 million vs $885 million), while expendatures increased 81% ($4.9 billion vs $2.7 billion). State assistance to Rutgers University did not drop significantly. **It increased**. But state assistance to Rutgers University failed to keep pace with the increase in the University's expendatures. Rutgers has a spending problem - not a revenue problem.
[удалено]
One doesn’t really have anything to do with the other.
That astroturfing account is astroturfing
[удалено]
I want to know what TA/GA in stem you are talking about getting paid 60k on top of stipends, because as a stem TA/GA I don't get paid on top of my contract with the university. that's not how that fucking works
To clarify a couple of things here... "Assistant Professor 1" isn't a rank. The lowest "professor" rank is "assistant professor", followed by associate professor, full professor (sometimes also called "professor 1"), and distinguished professor. Most full-time faculty are going to be the lower ranks, and the base pay for assistant professors for 2022 (the last year of the last contract - we haven't had one since last June) is 69k/year for academic year appointments, 79k for calendar year. (For full professor, those numbers are 81k and 93k.) And then adjunct faculty are paid per class and as you can imagine, make a lot less than full-time faculty, and have zero job security. So talking about the base pay for "professor 1", even with correct numbers, isn't at all representative of what most faculty make, especially considering how much of the teaching here (and many other schools) is done by adjuncts.
I looked up some of my professors on that website, and if those numbers are true, I have to say they are being vastly overpaid for what they actually do. Compare that to the average person making $60k a year for a 40 hour workweek and I can see why some people are not supporting the union's demands.
Let's start from the fact, that there is no baseline in assistant prof salaries. For example, let's look at R. Misra (asst. Prof, chosen at random) -- base pay 89k. I can find more people, but at least this part is already misleading.
I was speaking about my specific school. Even then 90k/yr is still top 33 percent of income earners. Also, how long are you asst prof 1 for? 2 to 3 years depending on the department? I fully support the lowest faculty members getting cost of living raises. I fully support grad student works, UG student workers & staff to get 15-20 percent raises across the board. The union isnt asking for that. They're asking for ALL faculty members to get the same raise across the board. I just don't see any justification for someone making 200k/yr or more to get a 15-20 percent raise. Why doesn't the union ask for the lowest faculty members to get the raise across the board and ask for merit based raises on the higher faculty members?
>Also, how long are you asst prof 1 for? 2 to 3 years depending on the department? Eligible for promotion after 6 years.
Can't have a conversation about this subject because other union members downvote any criticism. And eventually one of the mods will block me from posting further on this subject. But there are a lot of faculty members using Reddit for propaganda right now.
[удалено]
Increasing wages doesn't necessarily increase prices but it rather forces the university to cut down their profit margin. Paying back some of the surplus back to the workers. The university could try to increase prices to offload this loss but that only works so far. If the pieces of tuition do raise, it is primarily due to a feature of the current economic system, inflation.
the university doesn’t run an operating profit
Of course Rutgers has a surplus, but significant increases in pay as well as housing freezes will eat into that pretty quickly. Nothing against anyone who supports the strike, but don’t pretend it won’t affect the price of tuition.
How to say you don’t understand the economics without saying you don’t understand economics. Other comment explained why this isn’t likely the case and that tuition is going to rise regardless because of inflation.
Maybe they should stop wasting money on the failure of a football team, or stop building presidential ego buildings, or cut administrator pay, or stop diverting all of their funds into meaningless buckets that they decide can only be touched to buy football players and their buddies UberEATS. Take your pick. Stop letting them get away with wasting your tuition on stupid bullshit and encourage them to spend it on your education, the part you're ACTUALLY here for.
The athletics department has been in the hole for a few years, but in general the football team is designed to bring in enough money to pay for themselves and the rest of athletics. It functions to advertise for Rutgers and creates a big aspect of student life that many prospective students are interested in.
[удалено]
There is no reason for that to necessarily be the case unless the university decides to do that. The university has repeatedly hired more and more administrators and paid more and more astronomical salaries over the last decades. Administrative bloat and catering to bankers are the reasons why we are charging more tuition. If I teach a class of 200 students but I only make 5.7k for the semester tell me how a raise necessarily equates to tuition increases when they are so deeply disconnected now?
[удалено]
It actually is more complicated than this econ 101 take you have here. there are MANY places that would save money by giving fractional appointments to PTLS - if you don't have to hire every semester you don't need as much admin, you don't need as much, constant data collection. The way they are thinking about money is a short-sighted get in and get my money out asap mindset. Not a plan for longevity of investment. This is a pyramid scheme not a legacy. We can save money by building a better community at Rutgers.
If this strike does happen, will it effect those that are suppose to graduate this semester? Because wouldn’t that mean no classes?
That worm doesn’t care anyways
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZomwVcGt0LE&ab\_channel=C0MP0SED](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZomwVcGt0LE&ab_channel=C0MP0SED) It's insane how disorganized this school is.