What does the Administration mean by "Structural Change"?
August 7, 2017
The administration has repeatedly insisted they need to change the structure of the institution. The term "structural change" is a somewhat ambiguous accounting term usually applied to changes in operations which reduce fixed costs. In practice, it is usually part of an effort to sharply reduce labor costs to improve short term profits.
What does all of this mean for Rider? It means the administration wants to increase our workload, decrease our compensation, and reduce support for faculty development. This would change the balance between scholarship and teaching. They do not want this change for just for a year or two. They want these changes to be permanent. We believe that these permanent changes would alter our ability to retain and recruit the best faculty and would diminish the quality of the education we provide our students.
We have taken steps and made sacrifices that have provided structural changes for the university that significantly reduce the cost of instruction:
Both the lack of raises and the reduction of faculty numbers have direct impacts on more than salary for a single year. That is, raises and benefits like retirement contributions are calculated from base salary and therefore the university sees a compound savings year to year. As faculty retire and are not replaced, the university achieves obvious savings in salary and benefits, but even when a new faculty member is hired, it is at a lower rank which comes with lower salary and benefit costs. Also, cost savings are had when the line is not replaced at all.
The combination of these factors creates real structural savings without removing or permanently reducing benefits we think are important for our members like comprehensive insurance, pension, research and development leaves, summer fellowships, travel reimbursement, and tuition remission, which are critical to recruiting and hiring the best faculty possible.
The administration appears to hold a different position: to achieve their desired structural change, they have asserted, we need permanent adjustments like a move to a 4-4 workload, larger faculty contributions to healthcare, and minimal university contributions to retirement.
We believe that moving to a 4-4 workload will negatively impact the amount of time faculty will have to spend on co-curricular activities, advising, and scholarship. Further, the administration’s plans to freeze institutional support for research followed by smaller travel allowances, fewer leaves and fellowships, and less money overall, along with lower rank minima will lead to structural changes at Rider— structural changes that will adversely impact our ability to retain and recruit the very best faculty and which will be fatally detrimental to the academic quality of a Rider education.
August 7, 2017
The administration has repeatedly insisted they need to change the structure of the institution. The term "structural change" is a somewhat ambiguous accounting term usually applied to changes in operations which reduce fixed costs. In practice, it is usually part of an effort to sharply reduce labor costs to improve short term profits.
What does all of this mean for Rider? It means the administration wants to increase our workload, decrease our compensation, and reduce support for faculty development. This would change the balance between scholarship and teaching. They do not want this change for just for a year or two. They want these changes to be permanent. We believe that these permanent changes would alter our ability to retain and recruit the best faculty and would diminish the quality of the education we provide our students.
We have taken steps and made sacrifices that have provided structural changes for the university that significantly reduce the cost of instruction:
- We have foregone raises for three years;
- The size of the faculty is being reduced through retirements;
- The provost has authority to replace lines at her discretion.
Both the lack of raises and the reduction of faculty numbers have direct impacts on more than salary for a single year. That is, raises and benefits like retirement contributions are calculated from base salary and therefore the university sees a compound savings year to year. As faculty retire and are not replaced, the university achieves obvious savings in salary and benefits, but even when a new faculty member is hired, it is at a lower rank which comes with lower salary and benefit costs. Also, cost savings are had when the line is not replaced at all.
The combination of these factors creates real structural savings without removing or permanently reducing benefits we think are important for our members like comprehensive insurance, pension, research and development leaves, summer fellowships, travel reimbursement, and tuition remission, which are critical to recruiting and hiring the best faculty possible.
The administration appears to hold a different position: to achieve their desired structural change, they have asserted, we need permanent adjustments like a move to a 4-4 workload, larger faculty contributions to healthcare, and minimal university contributions to retirement.
We believe that moving to a 4-4 workload will negatively impact the amount of time faculty will have to spend on co-curricular activities, advising, and scholarship. Further, the administration’s plans to freeze institutional support for research followed by smaller travel allowances, fewer leaves and fellowships, and less money overall, along with lower rank minima will lead to structural changes at Rider— structural changes that will adversely impact our ability to retain and recruit the very best faculty and which will be fatally detrimental to the academic quality of a Rider education.