Nov. 10, 2004

Criteria for salary increase

In last month's all-employee memo from Rich Marquez, it is stated that

In response to the suspension of operations, the University of California and Laboratory management have agreed that: (1) this year's merit increases will be sequestered until there is significant progress toward resumption of operations; (2) the merit increases would not be retroactive to the usual date of October 1 [...] With respect to items (1) and (2) above, the Executive Board has determined that the [fiscal year 2005] merit increases will be effective Dec. 6, 2004 [...]

I am not quibbling with the 2 percent pay raise or the non-retroactiveness of it. I will just tighten my belts and decrease my charitable contributions as needed to deal with it.

What I have a problem with is the cultural problem reflected in this memo: if we are really serious about making "significant progress toward resumption of operations," then what is so magical about the Dec. 6, 2004 date? What is the metric by which we measure "significant" progress? What results would one expect from a "significant progress?" What is the true definition of "resumption of operations?"

For example, the Applied Physics (X) Division has been up and running at level 2 since Sept. 10. Considering that many of the organizations we collaborate with have not reached that milestone yet, are we considered to have made "significant progress" compared with these other organizations? Would organizations not coming back online until January be considered to have made "significant progress?" X Division alone cannot do its work, and we depend on many of these other organizations, so how does X Division alone make "significant progress toward resumption of operations" even at level 2? But, since we are all getting a pay raise on Dec. 6, are we all considered to have made significant progress toward resumption of operations by Dec. 6?

After this summer of idleness, we are still a culture held together and bound by meaningless milestones and deadlines. We still don't have enough guts to say, "haste makes waste," and we still can't make the time to do it right. If we truly believe there is a problem with our Lab culture, then we need to invest the 2-3, or even 7-8, years required to turn that around. Who on the current Executive Board will stick around long enough to see it through?

--Karen Pao