I was fascinated to come across this article in Inside Higher Education yesterday.
Given our conversations about Tenure and Promotion in class this weekend I found this especially timely and interesting. I am also always grabbed by any headline that includes the name of my alma mater and former employer. There is always a moment of anxiety as the headline comes into focus… will it be related to a positive or a negative happening or event?
Essentially the University of Colorado Board of Regents will be considering changing a policy that “guarantees” any member of the faculty who is fired one year worth of salary as “severance” so long as they are not fired for “moral turpitude”.
What the proposal says:
A faculty member may be dismissed for cause when, in the judgment of the Board of Regents and subject to the Board of Regents constitutional and statutory authority, the good of the university requires such action. The grounds for dismissal shall be demonstrable professional incompetence, gross or repeated neglect of duties, conviction of a felony, sexual harassment, or other conduct that falls below minimum standards of professional integrity. The Board of Regents may vote to deny one year of severance pay in cases of dismissal for cause. In so doing, the Board shall consider any recommendation from the Faculty Senate Committee on Privilege and Tenure.
The proposed changes seem logical and appropriate. The University is attempting to more clearly outline the expectations of faculty and to set clear boundaries surrounding the protections of tenure. They also seem to allow for the circumstances we discussed in class surrounding faculty who fail to be granted tenure.
What is more interesting is the associated article at the Boulder Daily Camera. For starters, the article has a giant picture of Ward Churchill and focuses on the $96,000 payout he received when he was fired in 2007. The comments to article are fiery and passionate (though rarely connected to the fact that the CU policy is attempting to change the very concerns raised by the commenters) and often escalate to less than friendly banter between both sides. The debate focuses on the public sector being out of control vs. the private sector being out of control. Buyouts and bailouts, golden parachutes, taxpayer money and higher education funding (or lack thereof) are all thrown in the mix. One would almost think it was a debate about the “Occupy” movement and not about CU changing a policy to eliminate paying those who are fired for a failure to perform.
As an exempt professional in an at-will state I have often mused (and more often ranted) about how nice it would be to be fired for completely stinking at my job and ruining my organization and still be paid in full. I have also wondered what it must be like to be able to stink and destroy and actually be paid extra to leave. Having watched a few CU Presidents be paid to leave, seeing countless collegiate and professional coaches continue to be paid millions after being fired for ineptitude (Josh McDaniels anyone?) I can understand the angry and elevated debate in the comments section.
Sometimes I worry that we have become so angry an accustomed to debating and fighting that we can no longer see solutions and progress. CU’s proposed policy (give it comes 4 years after the issue was brought to light) should be seen as a step in the right direction. Instead it is just an excuse to rehash the same arguments we have been having for years.
I worry about the implications that this scenario has for us as a country. It will be very hard to move forward so long as we are obsessed with looking backwards.
I like the change in policy, as I agree that those fired for moral ineptitude should not be entitled to receive pay for work they are no longer doing. I really do not believe that anyone should be entitled to pay from an employer that has fired them, or forced their resignation. I could not get a blue-collar job, not do the work required, and expect to be paid for a year because I sucked. But of course, the white-collar world is a totally different beast. While, I do not agree with paying fired employees, I do see the benefit. Employees are often under contract or tenured when they are forced out of an organization. Technically, the money paid up front for a year of non-service, or for a contract buyout, most likely saves millions in legal fees in the long run, as most of the employees in question would sue if they were kicked out of the door with nothing in their hand, or wallet in this case. Do you not love the litigious society in which we live?
ReplyDeleteThese are all great points as far as tenure and what happens when someone is let go of their inept actions on the job. From the conversation this past weekend, tenure is an interesting topic and has a lot of different components to it. I am a tenured employee, and I have seen how complacent employees can be once they achieve the tenure track. However, I think the public hears and reacts more to this than the majority of the tenured employees. There is a difference to being tenured and having a contract that guarantees you a certain pay. If the contract discusses that you can will be fired for x,y, and z. However, there are clauses in most contracts that discuss your guarantee pay. The professional athletes that receive their pay after being fired (i.e. Mike Shanahan, who was still payed by the Broncos last year) were guaranteed that money. They are the most at-will employees of anyone in the US. However, I think the difference between a blue-collared job and a white-collared job is the amount of money and responsibility one has within the company. For that reason, they are "entitled" to a certain amount of money in return, unless they break something that was within their contract. Even though I am a tenured employee, I can't imagine if I broke the rules or got fired that I would receive any type of benefits or compensation. I guess the best option for anyone, tenured or not, is to become a professional athlete!!
ReplyDeleteits the American way baby...Serious though, I think that this new effort for policy change is a good one. I too, cannot imagine being paid for "not doing my job" but can also appreciate the complexity that come with contracts, tenure, and other clauses that upfront acknowledge liability from both parties. In a perfect world, individuals would maintain integrity and be proactive whether or not tenure... but reality is, people seem to as mentioned early, become complacent. My thought is then, how do institutions and employers continue to motivate people to maintain balance and effort after tenure or contracts are established? What motivates those who give to their best of ability their best? I am curious to suggestions and thoughts and know that motivation is key to how to make change for how we conduct ourselves after such fortune of getting tenure or contracts that protect the employee...as a blue collar worker most of my life, interest has always been for the guy who makes more money-which is not necessarily the guy who works the hardest. Just my thoughts....
ReplyDelete