£5000 a week + £1635 a week in perks for chief university bureaucrat?


For the financial year 2013-14 the Vice Chancellor of Bath Spa University, my employer, received a salary of £256,000. This represented an increase of 18.5% from 2012-13. In the same year she received contributions to her pension fund of £43,000, which is more than my salary, and will allow to her retire on an annual pension far in excess of anything the rest of us could ever earn. She also spent £42,000 of the universities money on expenses, which is again more than my salary. So on top of her salary of £5,000 a week she also received or spent, another £1,635 A WEEK. Bath Spa is not a Living Wage employer and the rest of the staff had a pay increase of 1% over the same time period and a 15% cut since 2010 if inflation is taken into account. What the hell is going on? How can any individual be ‘worth’ such vast sums? Does a VC work harder than the rest of us? Are these men and women so uniquely clever that they deserve such grotesquely inflated remuneration packages?

If you are very wealthy and want to stay very wealthy, it is in your interests to increase the profitability of companies you own and to reduce your tax bill. Thus the ‘austerity’ agenda and turbo-charged neoliberal capitalism come together to serve the interests of the wealthiest. The ‘austerity’ agenda to drastically reduce public spendingis not separate from neoliberal capitalism, it is part of the neoliberal package.
Right-wingers, especially in the USA, theorise taxation as a form of theft. ‘I own what I own and it is wrong of anyone, including the government, to take any of what I own from me,’ they might say. Then those of us on the Left might reply, ‘Well, you only exist as part of a society and you only own what you own partly because of the infrastructure and institutions that existed prior to you and the work of others directly employed by you but also others not directly related to your enterprise, and that therefore it is only right that those others and society in general share in that wealth.’
Now, we can argue about whether Richard Branson say, or Alan Sugar, ‘deserve’ their obscene fortunes, about the role of luck and coincidental timing played in their success, and about the role of the ‘heroic’ individual in econmic change, but whatever we say about that, we can say for sure that the vast majority of these CEO’s are not ‘heroic individuals’, on the contrary most of them are salaried, corporate technocratic and bureaucratic managers who have never taken a personal ‘risk’ in their lives and have spent a lifetime climbing the greasy pole.
You can also argue the toss about who creates wealth and at which point in the production cycle it is created, but the reality is that for the vast majority of us, including the middle-classes, a progressive tax regime that provides healthcare, education, welfare and even, God forbid, arts provision, from collective funds raised through tax, is a much, much, better deal than an entirely free market that by it’s nature creates insecurity, low pay and constant flux. For the majority of us security of employment and high quality public services are far, far more valuable than low taxes and high profitability
I would argue that this is why the remuneration of CEO’s (including university VC’s) across both the private and public sectors of the economy, have rocketed in the last 20-30 years. These men and women are being rewarded for managing the process of delivering higher profits AND lower taxes, BUT to do so without industrial strife. They are tasked with ‘getting more for less, and with as little trouble as possible,’ which inevitably means undermining collective worker power, charging ‘customers’ more (students in the case of a university) and reducing the pay and conditions of staff in order to reduce costs. This applies just as much to public services as to private businesses because of the elite wish to increase profitability AND reduce taxes. It also illustrates why the media is such an important player in the neoliberal project because the control and manipulation of information and ideas is crucial in bringing about economic and social changes that are so manifestly not in the interests of the vast majority.
But by paying these technocrats and bureacrats such vast sums the system actually makes them part of this wealthy elite and as a result the dual aims of increasing profitability and reducing public spending, become aims that are in their own direct interests, not simply as abstract, theoretical  ‘goods’ as proposed by econmic savants like Ayn Rand and Milton Friedman, but ‘goods’ that reflect directly in the technocrats bank balances.
So these men and women, whether in private business or public services, are given these obscene rewards to allow them access to, or maintain their membership of, the ruling class, and thus incentivise them to deliberately and consciously reduce the pay and conditions of everyone else in order to increase the wealth, status and privilege of the ruling class… that in turn they become part of by fulfilling these tasks.
And so it is that a bureaucratic (technocratic at best) manager of a not-for-profit public institution can be awarded a remuneration package that is simply beyond the imagination of most of us. I don’t know about you but this makes me very, very angry!

 

 

 

Advertisements

4 responses to “£5000 a week + £1635 a week in perks for chief university bureaucrat?

  1. moelarrythecheese

    As I started reading this I thought about those people in the government (US) who legislatively control the spending of the government’s money and how, over the years, they have voted themselves high salaries, extremely high pensions for life, exemptions from laws, etc. Why do they make themselves so “comfortable?” It’s because they directly control the power to do so. Do you think the evil King John (of movie fame) would consider limiting his income to make it easier on the taxed peasants? Maybe he would if he had Robin Hood to worry about. These obscene salaries, I believe, are the responsibility of individuals who have the power to directly control the disbursement of the money in conjunction with a “commission-system” of reward where decision makers, managers, etc., are rewarded by the “masters” at a level directly tied to the “profits” which these managers are able to acquire for the “masters.”

  2. moelarrythecheese

    OMG I must have accidentally turned left back there.

  3. I’m, always, a bit late to the party. Similar situation here. For quite a while, we (meaning the offspring at the local University & paying parents) have been a bit torqued at the silly University salaries. I’m being polite here. The local University, currently attended by the no longer tax deductible offspring, has a President whose getting a bit below the salary you offer above. All the while tuition rises, enrolment has swollen well above what the State wants to see, & Professors have been told to cut classes, et cetera. The 4 year public University has become 7 years (one of the brood, finally, graduates in 3 weeks). A more serious problem is the lack of jobs for the grads. The highly paid University President, is churning out graduates to a dead end. Here in “Silicon Valley” the major companies beg…………excuse me, lobby our Government for more visas, to import “highly skilled workers” from other countries. They claim, they can’t find qualified people here. So University President makes a bundle. The public is bled dry via tuition. The young adults graduate, only to be told, “Sorry mate, you ain’t got what we want…….Next!” How can his salary be justified?? One that Chris might relate to, faculty morale is at an all time low.

    As for taxes, I’m one that agrees they need to be paid. I like water, when I turn on the tap. The bog flushes, as needed. Finally, if a relative is in need, or close to falling off their perch, I can call an ambulance for emergency services. Finally, as long as they don’t shoot first, we can call the local police if they are needed. Taxes are a necessary evil. That said, the issue with taxes is when they go up, simply because of gross pension payment obligations. Back to the comments made by moelarrythecheese & yourself. Prattling ceases.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s