Physical Plant on HA Forum - USM Forum -- Message Board

Date: Jun 9, 2006

RE: Physical Plant on HA Forum

Date: Jun 9, 2006

Jameela Lares wrote:

What troubles me in this discussion is the assumption that another human being is somehow not worth paying a living wage. Its concomitant assumption is that the inflated salaries of administrators represent their "worth," that they are, say, 5 times better than a professor or 15 times better than a janitor, or some such poppycock. These assumptions are toxic. If one makes them and is also getting an inflated salary, then that person must--in order to feel justified with the pay--assume that those below him/her are inferior and somehow themselves responsible for the inequities.

Despite such gimme-gimme economics, the laborer is still worthy of his hire.

Jameela

The wages of all workers are directly related to the supply of workers and the demand for those workers' skills. It is true that a custodial position requires little or no skill or innate ability -- only the willingness to do the work. On the other hand, neurosurgery requires quite a bit of skill and innate ability (in addition to years of education and training), and not very many people can and will do that job.

The trap that many people fall into around here is that the value of one's life is measured in terms of one's job salary, which is a false avenue to trod. Here you're not talking about economics, you're talking about a sociological issue.

Is LeBron James worth $4,621,800 for the 79 games he played in the 2005-2006 NBA professional basketball season? I mean, he has a high school diploma and no college education, yet he makes almost 100 times what some USM faculty members make. Is he 100 times more valuable to society than I am? No!

LeBron James is worth 100 times more to the Cleveland Cavaliers than I am worth to USM, because there are very, very, very few (almost none) players that Cleveland could use to truly replace James, while every year graduate schools turn out many Ph.D.s in my field whose productivity would not be as high as mine but that would be able to teach classes. James' salary is based on the demand for his services, just as my salary is based on the demand for my services and a custodian's salary is based on the demand for his or her services.

Again, though, too many individuals equate salary with societal worth, and anybody who does so is at peril of simply being silly.

As an aside, I would also like to state that the concept of a "living wage" is bogus. The "living wage" concept attempts to place a "floor" on wages, regardless of how little work (or how little skill or ability is required to do the work), and is simply another attempt to socialize the U.S. economy.

Date: Jun 9, 2006

CoBster in Residence wrote:….”As an aside, I would also like to state that the concept of a "living wage" is bogus. The "living wage" concept attempts to place a "floor" on wages, regardless of how little work (or how little skill or ability is required to do the work), and is simply another attempt to socialize the U.S. economy.”

True demand and supply have much to do with prevailing wages, but so also do the initial conditions that create them. Inherited wealth, ongoing Enronesque scams, the twisting of the tax system for the wealthy, corporate welfare (e.g., Bush giving oil companies tax breaks in years with record profits), etc. all make it difficult for many to earn a decent living. To call the drive for a “living wage” a name from the cold war, i.e., “socialize,” seems you are an apologist for the status quo, the wealthy. Please put as much effort in helping those who are trying to pull themselves up by their bootstraps.

Date: Jun 9, 2006

Business as if people mattered wrote:

True demand and supply have much to do with prevailing wages, but so also do the initial conditions that create them. Inherited wealth, ongoing Enronesque scams, the twisting of the tax system for the wealthy, corporate welfare (e.g., Bush giving oil companies tax breaks in years with record profits), etc. all make it difficult for many to earn a decent living. To call the drive for a “living wage” a name from the cold war, i.e., “socialize,” seems you are an apologist for the status quo, the wealthy. Please put as much effort in helping those who are trying to pull themselves up by their bootstraps.

Just how many of our interest group -- the USM Physical Plant workers -- worked really hard, became educated, and then fell into slavery to USM?

Anybody in this country who wants to work hard, who makes a conscious decision to value education above all else (including carnal pleasure, hedonistic activity, or any other activity) can find grant money, scholarship money, or (as I did) student loans to pay for higher education. Individuals who claim not to be able to "pull themselves up by their bootstraps" all too often have made choices that conflict with the "education as the way to freedom" concept.

I see opportunity everywhere for those who want to work. Unfortunately, your view seems to be that the government should come in and forceably level the playing field so that everyone has to work consistently hard in every generation.

You know, I sometimes don't think it's fair that one of my grandfathers was an alcoholic who couldn't hold a job, while the other simply didn't care about retirement planning or job security. Neither worked very hard at establishing an estate so that my parents didn't have to work so hard. Neither instilled a huge value of education in their children. My parents, however, made consistent, conscious decisions to become the first from both of their respective families to graduate from college, and they made conscious decisions that have helped me become what I am. When I think about how "unfair" the world is, I think about the sacrifices my parents made so that I would be better off, yet you seem to want to reset those sacrifices to zero so that my parents' sacrifices, planning, and decisions cannot carry forward to help my children via accumulated monetary wealth.

In short, you simply want a "do-over" for everyone who claims to not have gotten a fair shake in this country. My response: the reason many individuals haven't gotten a "fair shake" is because they aren't willing to sacrifice so that their children/grandchildren/great-grandchildren will be able to have a better life. You want everything equal NOW.

By the way, if not for investment by the wealthy, this country's economy would shrivel and die.

Date: Jun 9, 2006

CoBster in Residence wrote:

... By the way, if not for investment by the wealthy, this country's economy would shrivel and die.

Don't forget the contributions of the poor. If everyone was a millionaire, who would pick up the garbage?

Date: Jun 9, 2006

Joker wrote:

CoBster in Residence wrote:

... By the way, if not for investment by the wealthy, this country's economy would shrivel and die.

Don't forget the contributions of the poor. If everyone was a millionaire, who would pick up the garbage?

CoBster's proctologist.

Date: Jun 9, 2006

Mr. Wizard wrote:

J
CoBster's proctologist.

Only if he could charge ten times the rate and bill the universal healthcare provider.

Date: Jun 9, 2006

CoBster in Residence wrote:

Mr. Wizard wrote: J CoBster's proctologist. Only if he could charge ten times the rate and bill the universal healthcare provider.

Serious economic question, CoBster. I everyone was a millionaire, would they be equally wealthy or equally poor. Isn't it the difference in wealth that makes the engine run?

Date: Jun 9, 2006

What has been ignored in this outsourcing issue is that it has been sold as a free lunch for everyone involved. Of course there are not free lunches in these deals. The only way that Aramark can profitable take on the tasks being outsourced is to deliver an inferior product. They cannot hire a competent work force for less that USM can and they will not be that much more efficient than the current group has been. They will cut corners on providing the services and much of the repair that is required will be not be covered in their contract. The physical plant operation will go down hill and complaints by staff and faculty about shoddy work and bad service will be ignored.

The process is a scheme to take money up front from Aramark that will have to be paid back in the future at a large premium. In the long run it will cost the state more and the outcome will be inferior. The short-run benefit is that SFT can get up front money to kick the can down the road until he is gone. USM is “robbing Peter to pay Paul”. Who ever comes in as the new President will be blamed for the future financial disaster unless they are astute enough to lay it out clearly when they take the job.

Date: Jun 9, 2006

Cossack wrote:

What has been ignored in this outsourcing issue is that it has been sold as a free lunch for everyone involved. Of course there are not free lunches in these deals. The only way that Aramark can profitable take on the tasks being outsourced is to deliver an inferior product. They cannot hire a competent work force for less that USM can and they will not be that much more efficient than the current group has been. They will cut corners on providing the services and much of the repair that is required will be not be covered in their contract. The physical plant operation will go down hill and complaints by staff and faculty about shoddy work and bad service will be ignored.

The process is a scheme to take money up front from Aramark that will have to be paid back in the future at a large premium. In the long run it will cost the state more and the outcome will be inferior. The short-run benefit is that SFT can get up front money to kick the can down the road until he is gone. USM is “robbing Peter to pay Paul”. Who ever comes in as the new President will be blamed for the future financial disaster unless they are astute enough to lay it out clearly when they take the job.

I think you've hit the nail on the head, Cossack. We can all argue about wages, benefits, etc., but the essential question is what's best for USM and this isn't it.

Date: Jun 9, 2006

Cossack wrote:

What has been ignored in this outsourcing issue is that it has been sold as a free lunch for everyone involved. Of course there are not free lunches in these deals. The only way that Aramark can profitable take on the tasks being outsourced is to deliver an inferior product. They cannot hire a competent work force for less that USM can and they will not be that much more efficient than the current group has been. They will cut corners on providing the services and much of the repair that is required will be not be covered in their contract. The physical plant operation will go down hill and complaints by staff and faculty about shoddy work and bad service will be ignored. The process is a scheme to take money up front from Aramark that will have to be paid back in the future at a large premium. In the long run it will cost the state more and the outcome will be inferior. The short-run benefit is that SFT can get up front money to kick the can down the road until he is gone. USM is “robbing Peter to pay Paul”. Who ever comes in as the new President will be blamed for the future financial disaster unless they are astute enough to lay it out clearly when they take the job.

I think this summarizes the risk that is being taken. I just had a conversation with some of the principles involved in this plan, and they are looking at proximal pluses (e.g., three million in cash for repairs and upgrades; better health plan for employees), but they have not looked at (or are not fully sharing) the longer term risks and costs sufficeintly (e.g., real cost for amortizing the equipment and upgrades back to state ownership should this marriage fail; personal costs to employees in a non-mandatory defined contribution plan; effects on department operating budgets or services required to maintain our educational mission).

I am not against the idea of exploring "outsourcing" for certain university activities as a strategy to control costs and get a better bang for the buck. My concern is the same is yours--they are being mesmerized by up front cash in tight fiscal times and are willing to roll the dice on it. This will be a 50 million dollar plus five year transaction that affects a whole bunch of people. Many of us are worried that we are investing in a cull cow plant...

Date: Jun 9, 2006

This whole deal is about short-term paper savings and substantial long-term costs. The first thing to come out of this deal will be lots of deferred maintenence. Things in a few years will literally be falling apart.