\nAt a party late last fall, someone asked me what I thought about the \nI know that it's more complicated that what I set out here -- and \n(I'm looking for the source for the 20:1 figure and plan to follow up once I find it.)<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" 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 … Continue reading
\nstories that were breaking in the San Francisco Chronicle about how the
\nperks that senior administration at the UC system were getting. I
\nexpressed my natural outrage at the situation but didn't think a lot
\nmore about the matter since I didn't think anything would ever
\nchange. (I've gotten sufficiently cynical to expect bad behavior from
\nthe people at the very top. Isn't that sad?) Recently, I started to
\nfollow more closely the ongoing coverage in the Chronicle (including
\nthe latest article SENATORS DEMAND ANSWERS ON UC PAY \/ Unreported compensation raises ire at panel's hearing<\/a> ), as well as the PR responses of UC Berkeley<\/a> and the system as a whole<\/a>.
\nThe more I learn, the more I'm longing for some deep wisdom in this
\nmatter. How much I get paid or you get paid or anyone gets paid -- or
\nshould get paid -- is a hot-button issue. I've been fascinated by the
\ntypes of arguments that have been marshalled to justify various
\npositions. At the risk of incorrectly characterizing the debate, it
\nseems that those who are justifying the high pay of senior people argue
\nthat we need horizontal<\/em> parity; UC leaders should be paid at
\ncomparable levels to leaders at peer institutions. Those who express
\noutrage at the compensation of senior leaders draw our attention to the
\nlack of vertical<\/em> fairness; is it right for the pay at the
\nhighest levels to be going up, while the rank-and-file (who could
\nreally use the money!) are not similarly benefiting? <\/p>\n
\nthat's what I'm trying to get at as I sort through the arguments. More
\nfundamentally, I've been searching my own heart on how I currently feel
\nand how I would feel should I ever going higher (or fall lower) down
\nthe hierarchy. I keep asking myself to what extent are my views -- and
\nthose of everyone involved -- more self-serving than reflective of a
\nconcern for others. There's a lot more to say. I will close with
\nbemusement the following quote from the Wikipedia entry on Peter
\nDrucker: Peter Drucker - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia<\/a>:\n<\/p>\n His most controversial work was on compensation
\nschemes, in which he said that senior management should not be
\ncompensated more than twenty times the lowest paid employees. This
\nattracted criticism from some of the same people who had previously
\npraised him. <\/ul>\n