I don't drink colas, but without COLA, not getting a COLA means that you're actually losing pay if you don't get a raise. In the most equitable of all possible worlds, it would follow that if someone really deserves to get a pay cut from year to year, then that person should be fired. I do understand about a business not having the money to give raises. We have
been without a raise for four or five years, after all. But .5% is simply a slap in the face. I'd rather the money went to service our increasingly needy students, or to the staff, which is woefully underpaid.
I won't get into the reasons why we haven't had the money for raises for the last 4 or 5 years, but the responsibility goes to the administration, not to the staff or faculty. Does the administrator pay for his or her failures? Here's an account
of administrative salaries for your reading pleasure. It gives averages, and averages really don't indicate much. But I can tell you that the president of my institution is right on the mark with the averages, as is the provost. I don't know about the other ones. By contrast, staff and faculty are nowhere near the averages. How can that be? Well, who sets the agenda for salaries? From what group does the BOT get its information? Who has the power of life and death, especially over staff?
It ain't me, babe--I say no no no, it ain't me babe!