Gee thanks, part 2

I've been thinking more about the salary regime here, and I've got a couple of things to add.

First, I find it interesting that whereas faculty have been singled out for this 1%-1% scheme, administrators and staff are getting a flat 2% increase. Neither is stellar, of course, but I notice that it singles out faculty for "special treatment" (in the East German sense). If the "additional" 1% is truly intended to signify "merit" performance, shouldn't it actually be above and beyond a flat 'raise' that amounts to a cost of living increase? Perhaps faculty do less work than the other groups at the university, is that it? If you want to use this as a measure for retaining good faculty members, then shouldn't it be an actual, you know, reward?

And this brings up another point--I'm not sure how this helps the university system retain faculty. It would seem that the way to retain faculty, particularly the younger folks at the lower ends of the pay scale, would be to make the job attractive and rewarding. I'd class this primarily under the idea of faculty development--i.e., providing opportunities for meaningful teaching and research work, providing facilities and support services, providing library space and substantial research collections. Adding one percent to bring "merit" faculty up to the level of administrators and staff seems, well, insulting, as if Those In Charge wish to get credit for providing a cost of living increase without actually doing it.

Budget crunches, I can understand. Even though our "education" lottery has always been pitched as a panacea, they happen. But this policy is a matter of choice, was opposed by the faculty senate (in a self-interested vein, no doubt), and as far as I can see makes "merit" a punitive category in the sense that one needs to attain this category in one's evaluations just to match what the bosses and the groundskeepers and the clerical staff are deservedly receiving.

Okay, rant over.