Letters to the Editor: UC defends its contract offer in labor talks to avert a strike, Feb. 4
February 5, 2004
Dear Editor:
As a graduate professor of English at UC Santa Barbara, I am writing you to express my opposition to the University’s current contract offer to the National Association of Scholars.
The University has offered a raise of 2.5 percent in year one and a raise of 1.5 percent in year two. This would bring the annual package of benefits for faculty and staff up to $23,000.
According to the Chronicle, the rate increase would occur even if the contract agreement is not signed. The Chronicle’s editorial writer also says, “The University has announced the largest package of new benefits since 1989. The package, which includes salary and benefit increases, a 10 percent increase in health insurance and a $4 million increase in retirement benefits, is on many levels the largest ever offered a campus faculty.”
A recent nationwide survey of the Association of Professional Faculty revealed that faculty members overwhelmingly support the University’s offer. When asked specifically, “Would you sign a contract that would raise your salary by 10 percent?” 72 percent said yes.
The Chronicle, however, is the publication whose sole purpose is to advance the interests of the university community. In their letters and editorials, they often seek to confuse the public and promote the university’s interests to the public, as opposed to our own. It is difficult to ignore the Chronicle’s own articles and editorials that support the University’s contract offer.
This is how the Chronicle concludes its editorial: “The University has announced the largest package of new benefits since 1989. The package, which includes salary and benefit increases, a 10 percent increase in health insurance and a $4 million increase in retirement benefits, is on many levels the largest ever offered a campus faculty.”
I respectfully request that the University withdraw its contract offer. We should all be outraged and frustrated by the Chronicle’s failure to properly represent the interests of our institution. UC should remain open to