At a party late last fall, someone asked me what I thought about the
stories that were breaking in the San Francisco Chronicle about how the
perks that senior administration at the UC system were getting. I
expressed my natural outrage at the situation but didn't think a lot
more about the matter since I didn't think anything would ever
change. (I've gotten sufficiently cynical to expect bad behavior from
the people at the very top. Isn't that sad?) Recently, I started to
follow more closely the ongoing coverage in the Chronicle (including
the latest article SENATORS DEMAND ANSWERS ON UC PAY / Unreported compensation raises ire at panel's hearing ), as well as the PR responses of UC Berkeley and the system as a whole.
The more I learn, the more I'm longing for some deep wisdom in this
matter. How much I get paid or you get paid or anyone gets paid -- or
should get paid -- is a hot-button issue. I've been fascinated by the
types of arguments that have been marshalled to justify various
positions. At the risk of incorrectly characterizing the debate, it
seems that those who are justifying the high pay of senior people argue
that we need horizontal parity; UC leaders should be paid at
comparable levels to leaders at peer institutions. Those who express
outrage at the compensation of senior leaders draw our attention to the
lack of vertical fairness; is it right for the pay at the
highest levels to be going up, while the rank-and-file (who could
really use the money!) are not similarly benefiting?

I know that it's more complicated that what I set out here -- and
that's what I'm trying to get at as I sort through the arguments. More
fundamentally, I've been searching my own heart on how I currently feel
and how I would feel should I ever going higher (or fall lower) down
the hierarchy. I keep asking myself to what extent are my views -- and
those of everyone involved -- more self-serving than reflective of a
concern for others. There's a lot more to say. I will close with
bemusement the following quote from the Wikipedia entry on Peter
Drucker: Peter Drucker - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia:

His most controversial work was on compensation
schemes, in which he said that senior management should not be
compensated more than twenty times the lowest paid employees. This
attracted criticism from some of the same people who had previously
praised him.

(I'm looking for the source for the 20:1 figure and plan to follow up once I find it.)