Will there be open space in Residence Halls? Could we try to get some students who might be looking at off-campus housing and get them to stay on campus to bring in additional income? 

Is there a chance that staff working remote can stay working remote to offset additional costs in being on campus (electricity, office supplies, heat/air conditioning etc.)?

Could it be left to employees to decide if they would prefer the 10% retirement contribution cut or choose a comparable temporary salary cut? A 9% cut in salary and receiving a retirement contribution at the reduced salary is almost nearly the same direct cost savings of 10% per salaried individual to the university. This allows employees to decide how their money is best invested and how it affects their income brackets for tax and other purposes. 

I would like to echo my comments that were made in the video, and implore the University to seek alternative options to furloughs for Enterprise units. This option is especially difficult to hear when you consider that at this time there is no information that would lead me to believe furlought employees in the fall will receive additional assistance to make it through the furlough timefram.

Dear Cornell Leadership,

I wanted to express my concern with receiving both a salary freeze and a CURP hiatus. The combination of suspending a 2.5% SIP and 10% CURP is going to have real impact on our families. I would consider all other options before cutting the CURP. Thanks for allowing us to share our thoughts.

Thank you

My biggest concern is about the plan to accomadate and react to another outbreak in Ithaca when the student are n their resident halls and college town.  I hope that we have a plan to make space for isolation and handling ill students.

I am also interested in how we are safeguarding the virus being brought to ithaca.

As a parent of two current students we hope classes return to campus and also understand the concern over the spread of the virus.  However, upperclassmen have leases and so many of them stayed IN Ithaca this spring with plans of returning to Ithaca no matter what happens with the classes.  Something I think Cornell has little control over.  I think the university needs to consider aggressive testing methods in prepartion for them returning and staying on campus.

Can you share what the university is doing to support student with learning disabiliteis IF courses continue to be virtual?  

I understand the need to reduce the pay of staff and faculty during this hard time, however, is Cornell also working with the community and surrounding areas regarding cost of living? Due to the presence of both Cornell and Ithaca College, rent prices do not match salaries as is. If employees who are already on the receiving end of a lower band (C or lower) have their pay reduced, the ability to pay rent and live within the Ithaca area will be greatly impacted.

A cessation of retirement contributions is not just effectively a 10% paycut--this is real money we'll not be receiving and those contributions are part of any reasonable analysis of the remuneration we receive for our work--but it's also a cut to a payment into our retirement funds which we can't replace ourselves, tax-sheltered, if we're maxed out on personal contributions. 10% is a pretty large paycut to start with, and taking it from our retirement contributions, which are one of the reasons I chose to come to work at Cornell in the first place, is very worrisome, to me. This is also on top of the real-terms paycut we took when SIP was suspended (not to mention a halt in career advancement with the promotion freeze). The effective paycut here is around an eighth of our real-terms remuneration for the coming year.

I know there are no right answers during such a difficult time in the world, but I agree with others that the impact to employees retirement is very real and extremely concerning to me.  Has leadership considered reducing the Endowed CURP contribution rather than stop it all together for a year?  Regarding the Contract College employees having their pay reduced, would there be a formula for them because depending on what plan/tier you are in aren’t some of the contributions based on salary?

Can someone explain what the 6 month incentive payment + 1 year retirement contribution is - 6 months of your yearly salary? and 1 year retirement contribution of a percentage or of your full salary?  No clear explanation on that.

What is the logic in cutting staff in enterprise units that are revenue-generating?  Wouldn't we want to increase activities in those units and not reduce resources? 

Dear Cornell Leadership:

Thank you for your transparancey and soliciting feedback.  These are not easy discussions. 

I have concerns as an older worker about the cut to the retirement plan.  As others have noted, it's in effect worse than a 10% pay cut.  And for older workers, there is less time left to absorb the loss and rebuild in a very volatile investment environment.  And as others have noted, that potential cut is coupled with foregoing a pay increase this upcoming year. 

Is the retirement incentive an early retirement incentive, or meant for folks who are already eligible for retirement?  

Is there any information you could share about the fixed salary level under which there would be no salary reduction?  

Thank you for providing this forum.  

To get the 6 month incentive payment + 1 year retirement contribution is there a certain age you need to be do get this?  

What is the average retirement contribution on the endowed side?  Some people may not contribute at all, whereas others may contribute to the maximum, so the impact will vary greatly.  I agree with other commenters that we should be given a choice of salary reduction percentage or retirement contribution elimination, if possible.  In particular, it would help couples at the University manage their finances, as both wage earners will be affected unpredictably, depending on if they are endowed or contract college.  It would make all employees feel like everyone was contributing more equally to this recovery – 10 % (or whatever percent) from everyone and it would allow those nearing retirement (who will probably be impacted more) more control in how to recover/react to loss of salary/benefits before retirement.

Cornell Leadership - If I am understanding your proposal correctly, you are proposing the following in every scenario ...

Endowed Employees - no Cornell retirement contributions (10% of salary) for FY 2021 

Contract Employees - pay reduction of 1 - 5% based on pay range with some employees not having any reduction

If my understanding is correct, I am VERY concerned about this proposal as it does not appear to be equitable between Endowed and Contract employees.  Endowed employees would not only lose the retirement contribution for FY 2021, but they would also lose any compounded growth of that money for years to come, while Contract employees would be faced with a short-term one year deficit. Furthermore, I am struggling to understand how an effecitve 10% "reduction" of retirement income for Endowed employees is equal to a 1 - 5% pay reduction for Contract employees.  

I know these are difficult decisions to make and you are doing your best to make the "right" decision. My request is that whatever your decision is, please make sure it is equitable regardless if the employee is an Endowed or Contract. 

Perhaps the best approach is to allow the employee to decide if a retirement or pay cut would be best for their individual situation.

As a contract college member, neither one of these options are more equitable than the other. In the contract side we already pay more for health insurance than the endowed, have no vision plan, no access to the gyms on campus, and are required to put in funds for the NYS plan. As someone who worked on both sides, I actually took a pay cut moving over to the contract side although the salary was slightly more. The current deductions already impacting current monthly pay, an additional paycut would be even more difficult. 

The effect of removing funds for the immediate without the SIP for contract college employees, doesnt take into account the current situation of prices inflating with the pandemic. To have access to even less funds immediately can cause issues with access to child care, paying mortgage/rent, commuting costs, and other basic necessities. Due to high costs of living some staff members have addtional part time jobs, our household surely does, which were affected due to the recent shut down. 

In removing retirement funds for endowed employees does have a larger long-term implications however does not impact the staff members directly during the 2021 fiscal year.

If a plan moves forward, it should impact the staff equally in the same manner. 

Between the loss of SIP and now CURP I'm looking at nearly $16K income loss in our single income household in this year alone, not including lost compounded growth.  As I reflect on the 39 hours of benefits for exempt employees that never returned to 40 hours of benefits, you'll have to forgive me for being skeptical that we'll see a return of 10% CURP next FY.  One of the reasons that many exempt employees accept a lower salary than private enterprise would afford and opt to live in a very highly taxed state, is the CURP contribution.  It goes without saying that Cornell is gambling when it comes to knowing the impact CURP reductions will have on retaining staff who have highly marketable and necessary skill sets. 

After listening to the video, I was very disappointed to see that faculty were not impacted by this message.  Academic posting continues to be posted while non-academic position has been frozen for the majority.

Nothing ever changes it is always the staff that are affected.  Faculty are still getting promotions and summer salary. Many faculty, are getting more in summer salary than staff make in one year.

What do the staff get possible furlough, layoff, or reduction in salary.  Staff are the ones that are behind the faculty. 

Cornell University has a $7.3 Billion in Endowments.  Listening to Paul, I understand why you do not want to use the Endowments.  However, maybe you should.  We heard the same thing in 2008/2009 about the Endowment. It is time to use it and stop reducing staff and staff salary.    

I support both Scenario #1 Full Residential Hybrid Instruction and $98M

Has the university leadership considered an across the board short term furlough of one to two weeks for all faculty and staff to help reduce longer term furloughs and layoffs?  What savings might a this option provide?

Admin on tapping the endowment: "We can't possibly do that, it permanently decreases available funds and leads to having to cut expenses later! This is a totally unreasonable thing to ask of a multi-billion-dollar enterprise!"
Also admin: "Endowed staff will get no contributions to their retirement accounts this year, permanently decreasing their available funds and leading to expense cuts later. This is a totally reasonable thing to ask of heavily-indebted employees for whom the retirement contribution was part of the explicit hiring contract and implicit social contract!"

It would be nice if Cornell would use some of the endowment and consider anyone that has 25+ years and meets the 55 and 10 criteria to be offered a one-year salary and one-year retirement contribution incentive. The thought of coming back to campus and risking our health is nerve racking. I agree that that the best approach is to allow the employees to decide if a retirement or pay cut would be best for their individual situations. Those of us that have been employed with Cornell for a long time and are close to retirement will not be able to bounce back as quickly as the younger generation.

Has the university leadership considered reaching out to staff members to see if there would be any interest in voluntary reduction in work hours/furloughs?

What is the reasoning as to why FCS is not allowed to hire temporary trades people to do departmental work in house rather than allow that work to be contracted out? It would appear that if we are doing that work in house with our FM project group a portion of the money spent on those projects, while expense to the particular department, would be revenue to FM-FCS (University department) instead of 100% of that money spent leaving the University by contracting it out. Surely we were not in the business of doing that type of work and losing money on it. It would seem that the cost of having a temporary tradespersons on staff dedicated to departmental work would not exceed the hourly rate that they bill out. The argument that if we don't do the work in house the money won't get spent on this type of work has proven not to be the case over and over again. The work still happens. That type of work budgeted at around $350,000 or less is generally less expensive to do with our FCS-FM projects groups as the overhead of design, project management, and contract management are considerably less than when work goes out to bid. Factor in at cost material and now comparable labor rates to contractors, the understanding of our capabilities and the discretion used to only execute the work we can do in a fiscally responsible manner to the University and what you have is a win/win situation for the units within the University, the employees doing this work, as well as the University as a whole. 

Furthermore, if we are looking at a reduction in spending towards this work in the future, wouldn't now be the time to organize a temporary labor force to accommodate all the work that is currently out there? We are talking about reductions and cutting and appear to be completely overlooking this opportunity to bring more revenue in.

It is entirely inappropriate to be having discussions regarding permanent long-term income cuts to employees (i.e. no CURP contributions) while simultaneously demanding that those employees all take on significant additional responsibilities due to a hiring freeze, attrition, and rapidly shifting self-contradictory direction from above with impossibly short deadlines.

The University must address the reality that the current crunch-level workload being required of all staff is unsustainable, and expecting us to maintain that level while simultaneously reducing compensation is patently absurd. The concept "Do more with less" is a nonsense corporate platitude that has no business here. At some point, we must do less with less. At the very least, maintain status quo without continuing to pile on "initiatives" on increasingly smaller and more stressed single points of failure, or risk disaster when those points decide it's no longer worth the stress at the newly reduced compensation.

As a staff member who is in a lower band of pay, I already pay 60 percent of my salary in rent. I can barely afford to live and work here already. Taking away Cornell's retirement contribution for a year is a significant reduction in benefits, and the benefits are the only thing keeping me even just barely able to survive here. Please consider other options, and consider skipping elimination of CU retirement contribution for low-earning staff. As another commenter noted, very highly paid faculty are not getting reductions and their lives won't be severely affected like ours will if you reduce some of their income/benefits/extras. While I realize you want to ensure faculty retention, faculty will understand that cuts are happening everywhere, so it's not like Cornell is singling them out. Also please consider urgently adopting more energy efficiency measures that could significantly reduce what Cornell spends on heat, light, and so on. For example, the building I work in is consistently greatly overheated and there are incredible inefficiences everywhere. LED lighting would also help, and auto shut-off lighting. Closing some buildings overnight and reducing heat or cooling. Better insulation and windows could help. Geothermal. Green buildings/roofs/walls. There are so many more measures that could make Cornell a leader in this area, and there are even grants that could help accomplish this. We could be saving millions in operating expenses.

I believe it is mission critical to remain a "need blind institution" and thus find ways to make up any gap for financial aid that might be caused by the current economic, viral induced, climate. To support the mission of Cornell and retain my rewarding job I am willing to share in the financial responsibility. There was no salary improvement this year, so I (we) have contributed ~2-3% in real dollars. Further I am willing to take a 1 year salary reduction to support Cornell (and thus honestly my future employment). I believe there should be a salary cap under which there is no salary reduction (e.g. ~$50-70K/year) and also agree with a graduated decrease, i.e. make more = a larger cut. Lastly I understand that future earning from the endowment should be preserved and that much of it is restricted in use.

However, I think if there has been a time for a one time use of some of it prudentely for financial aid this might be it; with some use in all three budget deficient forecasts.

I encourage examining a model where a sustainable, small portion of the endowment is used to help offset salary reduction (not elminate them). For example, if there is already a 3% loss of SIP and someone stands to loose 3% more how about using the endowment to the extent this person looses only 1.5% of salary, i.e. a total fiscal year loss for this person of 4.5% instead of 6%? The other examples at the 1-5% reductions are obvious.

If the math works it appears that shared individual and instiutional accomdations could work for Cornell, individual employee work satisfaction, and in fact likely the benefit of the entire economy (esp. Tompkins Co. and neighboring ones where Cornell employees live).

Thank you for all your thoughtful and hard work to face this challenge to the best of our ability.

I was hoping that the presentation would also include some explanation of any sort of earmarking that is being done for specific cost-savings strategies. For example, when the voluntary salary cut by senior leadership was first announced, it was stated that every penny of that savings would go toward student financial aid. While I understand that choice from the perspective of our mission, it also sends a message to staff that preserving jobs is not a driver for that particular cost-saving action. If other actions are being similarly earmarked (e.g. to cover student financial aid) I would like to see those choices disclosed transparently. Those choices are a reflection of our values as an institution, and the specific choice cited here did not align fully with my own values, an area where I very much hope that I will find common ground with my employer.

Some of us have been around for a while and have a somewhat cynical view of how often promises are fulfilled. Can we get a guarantee, in writing, with a penalty to the University should they choose to break that guarantee, that the proposed "temporary" cuts to salaries/retirement will be restored in FY2022?

Asking everyone but faculty to sacrifice, once again, is making the repeated "we're all in this together" messaging a bit hard to swallow. Perhaps they could consider making similar sacrifices that they're expecting of their support staff. Unless they'd like to handle all of that work themselves.

Long-term, perhaps having the Ithaca campus's fortunes be less tied to the performance of the campuses in New York City (the medical hospital and the tech campus) is something to consider. I'm old enough to remember when we were "promised" that the New York tech campus would not take any resources from Ithaca.

I appreciate Mary Opperman's observation that we are a community of highly creative people with ambitious ideas for things we want to do (it is one of the reasons I value being part of this instutition), and also her observation that we need to right-size our ideas, and therefore the size of our staff, to our true, sustainable financial capacity. However, in every cycle of cuts I have navigated in my 30 years here, I have yet to see true leadership around right-sizing the scope of our initiatives to match the realities of our resources. The difficult decisions about cutting staff are made out of budget necessity, but I have yet to see a leader who can make the equally difficult choices to reduce our scope of work accordingly. Doing the same with less is just as unsustainable, even if the numbers on the budget sheet look great, as doing more than we can afford. I truly hope every dean and every vice president is being held accountable for demonstrating not just what staff they will cut, but what work - initiatives, ideas, projects, events - they will ALSO cut, so that those who survive the cuts can have realistic, attainable goals to be achieved. Without this, we will be in this situation again, and again, and again.

I don't see how the salary reduction of 1-5% in the contract colleges is equivalent to no retirement contribution (last I checked 10% of my salary) and the corresponding future earnings for endowed employees. I would like to hear more about why this is considered equitable and compareable. I understand that difficult decisions will have to be made. Our students, their parents, and our faculty, have very high expectations of our services. We will have to start doing less with less. We can't continue to be expected to do more, or even the same, with less. 

I was here in 2008 when cuts had to be made...and it was the staff / non-exempt that took the biggest hit, learning how to do more with less.  Now...again...it is not the faculty/ those with the highest salary's that are asked to take a cut or reduction in order to save the Uniiversity funds so they can continue to operate...it is the staff /non-exepmt employees...the ones who have the most to loose that are being asked to give up more.  I understand that SIP needed to be taken....we never really saw that come back to what it was before 2008...in fact it doesn't really amount to a cost of living increase.  But now to sugguest eliminating CURP...even for a year...that's not only disappointing...it raises many deep concerns...first and foremost...how can those close to retirement hope to recover what a year of those contributions would have been....not only in the contributions themselves...but in the investments and returns.  There is not enough time for many to absorb that loss and rebuild.  That's quite a cut you're asking us to take..  If you care about your employees...then perhaps you should try to find other solutions to solving the financial problems that Cornell is facing, and look to those that have more expendable money.   Maybe it's time to ask Faculy to think enough of Cornell to step up and do their fare share as well.    We are all supposed to be in this together...aren't we?

I appreciate the efforts of all the university leaders during these difficult times.  This is not new, but much deeper issues for those of us who have been here for a long time.  What I am hopeful for is that leadership will direct faculty cuts first (pay, benefits) and not just the staff as we have been hit hard since 2008.  In addition, the university had implemented processes to not increase headcount and yet they went out the window.  Look at how many positions have been added; no spans and layers have gone out the window; and now the staff are going to be cut again (potentially).  I URGE the university to give options to staff if cuts are imminent.  For example, if you want the higher paid staff to take cuts, allow the pay to be cut but not the effort.  Effort reductions will totally affect years of service credit towards retirement (pay cuts do too) AND if you don't reduce their effort we can still accrue full time benefits to offset the pay decrease.  This gives at least some incentive and really doesn't hurt the university.  Also, if you push to reduce pay AND effort, it hurts NYS employees with their sick (HAP) balances which we can use towards retirement health insurance payments. 

I urge the university to give some options.  Staff have been a part of many new efficiencies in processing and have taken on a lot since 2008, been good citizens to keep our wonderful university prestigous and a wonderful place to work, but please do not hurt just the staff.  There are so many faculty who do not work to their full capacity and would like to see a drive to retirement programs for faculty to allow for new faculty hires and not hurt staff by cutting them.  How will you address union staff as I doubt they can be cut, how is that fair?

I understand why you wouldn't want to tap into the endowment funds but, FY2019 the fund gained 5.3% to reach a record high 7.3 billion, thats around 370 million increase in 1yr. From FY2014 - FY2019 the fund gained 1.6 billion.

As many have pointed out, the 10% CURP reduction seems far more severe of a cut than the 1-5% scaled cuts in the Contract College.

I, and other Endowed staff I spoke to, would like the option to have the pay reduction instead of the CURP reduction. For early-career employees, a huge retirement contribution cut like that now potentially means tens of thousands in losses in ~40 years. It's not an equivalent measure.

(It's also, needless to say, these staff pay/benefits cuts are already on top of the *actual* paycut due to no COL increase this year.)

I am seeking additional information concerning the voluntary retirement plan for contract college staff:  First, is the six month incentive payment period added to your total time in NYSLRS, and secondly, what type of retirement contribution/compensation would the contract college receive?

As someone who worked on campus through multiple fiscal crises, I have yet to learn how - if at all - the faculty contribute to the "we are in this together" solution to financial hardship? While I get that we want to retain the top teachers and research funding, at this time of global hardship and many smaller institutions going under, there are not as many options for the faculty (particularly young faculty) to flee. I believe staff have been squeezed as far as possible, and still do so much with less and less. The faculty must contribute as campus community members, we staff have many fewer opportunities for generating revenue as faculty (who can do speaking, consulting, and many other earning potential activities). 

Every staff member can name higher level employees who have worked beyond their efficient work potential, and I would hope that there could be hard choices in assessment of the production for G level and higher faculty AND staff. If they are not contributing equitably, furlough or layoff those who are not able to keep up with workload, technology, or other aspects that can be measured.

Hello, I am writing with a question (unfortunately I have not been able to watch the video recording of the zoom meeting). I wonder if this proposed budget cut will equally affect faculty and administration. I would also like to be reminded if the cancellation of the SIP for this year affects faculty and administration. The reason I am asking about these things is because I know that faculty are allowed to be promoted during this season, but staff are not. At a university that prides itself on equality, it would be unfortunate if these cuts were affecting only the lower paid people on campus. Thanks for any reply. 

The cessation of contributions to CURP would be very destructive to employees' long-term retirement planning.  Many employees could not afford to totally make up the loss of CURP contributions by increasing their own TDA contributions.  Cornell works to encourage employees to contribute to TDAs, but many employees do not, partly because they live from paycheck to paycheck.  Younger employees will have the option to leave Cornell for better opportunities, but employees close to retirement may feel compelled to stay despite the setback and will have to work longer than expected.  Poor health may make that impossible, leaving them financially unprepared at retirement.  Employees also fear that a cessation to CURP contributions announced as temporary will become permanent or lead to a permanently lower employer contribution level.  Cornell needs to look honestly at the returns from discretionary spending.  Cornell should always demand significant results from its spending on projects and not maintain some projects without proof of strongly positive results.

If the the university says we are all in this together, then I hope they are looking into faculty contributing to the cause as well with salary and/or retirement reductions. Faculty and staff are both employees to the university, and both contributing to the mission of the university. Please treat everyone equal and allow faculty to contribute to the cause as well rather than just staff trying to do more with less. Afterall, faculty are still able to receive promotions at this time, and staff positions are on freeze and now salaries/retirement are being considered to be reduced. I hope the university looks at all employees as equal and not just cut staff benefits.

This looks predetermined without much room for input, but I will share anyway.

It is shortsighted to take away retirement and not at least give people the choice to have it come from their salary rather than pre-tax investments. What is the harm to the university in offering choice to staff? Choice opens the possibility for keeping alive some sense of trust and community. Choice allows people to feel heard.

I’m most disappointed that choice is not an option. Within that context, I would much rather have a pay cut than a cut to my pre-tax investments. Looking beyond my own personal finances, I firmly believe retirement contributions should be an opt-out system for employees and that society benefits when people have the means to retire (opinion, I know). Eliminating employer contributions will mean some employees will choose not to contribute and are then more likely to need social services from the community in the future. It is a short sighted approach.

How is it in any collective body’s best interest to proceed in this way?

If individuals prefer a retirement contribution cut to a pay cut, that should be their right, but again – CHOICE. Imagine the trust and staff morale you might maintain if staff are given choice.

Listening to the presentation and reading the attached paperwork, it sounds as if pay cuts/retirement cuts are a done deal and that no option which does not include pay cuts for staff has reached the shortlist of potential paths. 

I echo many other people's feelings of being undervalued here. 

First staff lose their tiny SIP increases for the coming year, then we pause hiring for vacancies meaning that remaining staff will have to work harder/more hours (if salaried) for the same amount of money, then even the "best" case scenario proposed here takes away our retirement contributions for the coming year, which represents a cumulative effect greater than a 10% salary reduction. The salaried staff where I work are already asked to well beyond the standard 38-40 hours/week to get all our work done, so now there will be fewer members of our team, so we will work even more hours AND our ability to retire will efectively be pushed back for another year or more due to the lack of contribututions for the coming year.  Morale is already really low given everything going on this spring, isolation, stress trying to take care of children/homeschool them, fear over losing jobs, financial impacts of COVID, etc. Now Cornell will take away 100% of our retirement contributions for the coming year and give us more work to do, so I hope you realize morale is about to go into the toilet. If you care about staff you will find a way to still provide some amount of CURP, even if it's only a percent or two, and tap the endowment to some extent even at the $98 mil deficit level. Faculty may be the "brains" of the university, but staff are the backbone and you're about to break our backs.

Paul Streeter indicated that reducing or pausing retirement contributions for employees of the Contract Colleges isn't an option b/c it is a NYS obligation to maintain these contributions. First, it's important to note that salary cuts to Contract College staff and faculty will lead to reductions in retirement contributions, since those contributions are based on the employee's salary. I'm not aware if any of the funds for the Contract College's retirement contributions come directly from the State, or if they all come from Cornell, but if all or some of the funding comes directly from the State's budget, isn't there a risk of additional cuts to the State's retirement contributions, given the financial state of NYS? We've heard some members of the U.S. senate say they do not want the Federal government to "bail out" NYS and other coastal states during the Covid-19 pandemic, and the retirement systems of these States have been mentioned specifically as reasons why the Federal government should not provide funding to States' governments. Therefore, I'm concerned Contract College employees might be at risk of cuts to their retirement contributions in two ways, as a result of cut to their salaries and direct cuts that NYS might be contemplating to account for its large budget deficit. Thank you.

First and foremost I want to express my thanks for the presentation to the Employee Assembly and to the University administration for not rushing into any decisions and for soliciting comments from staff. Peer institutions announced their decision to stop funding retirement accounts a few weeks ago; those decisions were so quick that I wonder if their staff were able to comment.

As a follower of the news, I know a pay cut would be hard for many. When the pandemic started the need for food assistance grew faster than since the Great Depression. News of the number of people who were only one paycheck away from not being able to feed their family and pay for housing or make their car payment could be weighing on the minds of University administration who are making suggestions for the steps the University should take. The proposal to stop the University contributions to retirement rather than reduce pay for the same number of work hours would be the easiest way to not put some staff in a more difficult financial position today.

However, as an endowed employee who is closer to retirement than not, I too am concerned about missing the University contribution to retirement and being able to "catch up" from missing a year of contributions. I would be in favor of a pay cut similar to that proposed for the Contract College side. When looking at the options, has the University factored in the lower employer contributions to retirement, Social Security (and I believe Medicare) that would be required of the University if there were pay cuts causing overall payroll to be lower?

If not contributing to retirement is determined to be the best course of action on the Endowed side, I ask for a few things that would not place a large financial burden on the University. 1) when the University is speaking with our elected representatives at the State and Federal level, please ask them to consider legislation to allow anyone who does not get an employer match into retirement to be able to contribute more on their own to their retirement account (similar to how the CARES Act allowed retirees to not take a distribution this year); it is unclear if the current legislation for those who do not have employer-sponsored retirement benefits would apply to those whose employers do not contribute to retirement accounts for one year.  2) ask the benefits office staff to create a template letter we can use to ask our elected representatives to propose/consider the same legislation.  3) ask the benefits office to communicate other ways that staff can contribute to our retirement savings/reduce our taxable income, especially if additional legislation is introduced to assist workers across America (I am thinking of communications similar to the "Vested Interest" brochure the Office of Trusts, Estates and Gift Planning recently sent to alumni about the CARES Act).

When all of the hard decisions are made by the University administration are complete I will be grateful if there is as little job loss as possible. I can only imagine how difficult it would be to find another job in this region if there are many talented people completing for the same small pool of jobs that might become open.

I understand that Cornell is working hard to retain our positions and is thoughtfully evaluating all options. However, this is not like the 2008 crisis and those making decisions are likely in a different situation than most staff. We are at home. We have school age children who we are teaching. We are working early or working late or working weekends because our partners are also working full-time jobs (if we are lucky). Or we have less income and are faced with difficult choices daily. Some of us work to bring the best and brightest students into the university so that faculty have people to teach. Some of us work in development so that the endowment grows. Some of us work in facilities so that faculty have functional labs, equipment, and classroom spaces. 

We worry about our job security while we are being asked to give more, to do more with less, and to continue to support faculty needs when they are not sharing the sacrifice.