In many of the years prior to classified staff gaining the right to bargain over wages we would spend go years with raises of 0,0, 1.2,1.5,0,2.2.5,1% etc as pro staff and faculty found funds under the cushions for raises of 2-5% every year.

While I do not grudge classroom faculty raises, I do take issue with those who publish or research and delegate all teaching to grad students (to quote from Futurama "I can't teach, I'm a professor!"). Now if only the pro staff who have already gamed the system for increases would just pony up and pay back. You know who you are creating 'Zones, and Areas' to supervise all the while having fewer line staff and more managers in your operational chart. When the on schedule seniors of today were born the university had over 400 custodians reporting to a network of leads, about a dozen Supervisor 1 and 4-6 Supervisor 2 who report4ed to a manager of custodial services who reported to a director of facility operations. FF to today thousands more square feet to clean, about half as many custodians, the supervisor 2's ar now managers, who report to a director who reports to an associate VP. Just poke around any of the support services and you'll find admin padding.

"Any of these could become a millionaire
in just 10 years after taxes."

After taxes, maybe. After paying off grad school loans (PhDs take a while), mortgage/rent, utilities, general living expenses (in one of the most expensive areas of the country), etc, no freakin' way.

Surely you don't expect people to go through all the trouble only to make just five figures?

In fact faculty make far less on average than six figures. This error is understandable; you are relying on a a gross misrepresentation printed in the UW Daily recently. The Daily corrected it but it appear some damage has already been done by misinforming the public about this sensitive political issue.

The great majority of professors in the liberal arts make less than six figures. Lecturers in the arts, who most people outside the university don't distingusih from professors, on average are only about half way to 100k, and bear the greatest proportional burden for teaching our under grads, who are our future.

Lecturers mostly have Ph.D.'s but are not protected by tenure. If more faculty need to be cut as a result of the faculty "winning" a 2% raise, basically the only ones who can be cut are lecturers. But lecturers (and instructors) are the most cost efficient Ph.D. holding teachers on campus.

Does it make sense to lose some of our most cost efficient professional teacher so those that remain can take their 2% this year? Only to, it seems, those that are virtually un-fireable due to tenure track status. They pretend to be arguing out of altruistic concern for the institution and the faculty as a whole, but I think it is pretty clear that the bottom line is personal greed being leveraged from positions of untouchable security.

George Patsourakos
The University of Washington faculty needs to have its salaries frozen for the next year, because of the Herculean negative impact of America's economic slump -- the worst since the Great Depression. The fact is that many universities have already laid off several faculty and staff members due to the dismal economy. For example, the University of Toledo Medical Center recently laid off 37 faculty and staff members. During the Great Depression, teachers were "happy" to take a pay cut, because so many teachers lost their jobs. If the UW faculty does not have its salaries frozen, several faculty members will probably be laid off. These are very difficult economic times, and the UW faculty members must make some economic sacrifices -- or increase the probability of losing their jobs!