Response to salary cut letters

Joshua Lin

In recent letters regarding salary cuts, some authors have missed the point. The University of Minnesota exists neither to give staff nor administrators salary; it exists as a research and learning institution. Employees should be paid according to their productivity toward these ends and their difficulty of replacement. Why is being an executive more important to our society than a janitor? Because there are plenty of people willing and able to be janitors for $10 an hour. IâÄôm not saying that administrators deserve their pay or that staff donâÄôt, but just because somebody gets paid more doesnâÄôt mean that they deserve a larger pay cut. The conversation on pay cuts shouldnâÄôt be based on the need of the employee. It should be based on the need of the University. While it would be nice if everyone could receive exceedingly comfortable salaries, overpaying or over-employing staff or administrators based on their needs prevents the University from efficiently providing the best education possible. âÄúFairâÄù wages is not a valid argument for a smaller cut in salary. If staff can properly argue that they collectively are more irreplaceable or important than their compensation suggests (or that administrators are severely overpaid), then everyone should support more balanced salaries. The discussion is not about who needs the money more. ItâÄôs about who deserves it. Joshua Lin, University undergraduate studen