Last year, 65 executives at the University of California received a total of almost $2.4 million in salary bonuses. The university’s release of this information on Jan. 10 caused protests from the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees Local 3299, which had been in negotiations with the university for a new contract concerning the wages of lower-level workers.
Among the recipients of the bonuses — which averaged about $36,000 — was UC Davis Medical Center CEO Robert Chason, who received $82,000 in addition to his $410,000 annual salary.
“Our members are furious,” AFSCME chief negotiator Paul Worthman said. “At a time when the university is contending that it doesn’t have enough money to give to the lowest-paid employees who haven’t had a raise in two years, they’re giving huge bonuses to executives that already have huge salaries.”
However, UC Labor Relations spokesman Noel Van Nyhuis said that the bonuses were part of the executives’ compensation packages, as dictated by a decision made by the UC Board of Regents in 1992. In accordance with this resolution, the executives’ salaries are composed of two parts: a base salary and an incentive award, which reflects the overall success of the medical center, according to Van Nyhuis.
“We definitely regret that the state budget cuts have prevented a systemwide salary increase over the past few years,” Van Nyhuis said. “Whether we will be able to depends on the approval of Gov. Schwarzenegger’s budget by the state Legislature.”
However, the wages of lower-level employees are not the only concern of those who are questioning the bonuses.
“[The funds] could have been used to deal with the shortage of staffing, improve the quality of care or offset the enormous increases that students in medical schools and working at medical centers are paying,” Worthman said.
Jennifer Lilla, president of the UC Student Association and a graduate student at UC San Francisco, also lamented the loss of funding for other purposes.
“I would love to think that [the money] could have been used to help tuition prices for students,” Lilla said. “I wonder if there could have been some way to use those funds in a way that would have helped a great number of people instead of just a few.”
Van Nyhuis said, however, that the funds were specifically earmarked for the purpose of compensating executives and could not have been used for any other cause.
As to the future of the negotiations between the AFSCME and the University of California, Van Nyhuis and Worthman differ in opinion. The union considers the mediations over, according to Worthman. However, Van Nyhuis believes that an agreement over a new contract may still be reached.
Given the state of negotiations, Lilla maintains that whatever the true origin of the funds was, it is unfortunate that they had to be used at such an inconvenient time.
“I personally have no problem with the fact that they were given raises, but the timing is quite poor, given the dire straits that the university is in right now,” Lilla said. “There is a lot of other staff without pay raises and the timing is very unpleasant for students and staff alike.”
