update: UO posts ad for Chief Human

Resources Officer. Associate VP for HR Linda King is retiring. Ad here, with new title: The University of Oregon seeks an innovative and strategic leader for the position of Chief Human Resources Officer (CHRO). Using a search firm for this. King was paid $161K.

Looks like her #2, Randy Wardlow, has also left. He was paid $94,806. The job posting for a new Employee and Labor Relations Manager is here. 1/30/2013.

Tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

22 Responses to update: UO posts ad for Chief Human

  1. Anonymous says:

    She is a tireless advocate for UO employees. I hope you don’t trash-talk her.

  2. Anonymous says:

    Don’t blame Linda for receiving comparable pay to comparable work within the UO administration.

  3. Anonymous says:

    Dig a little deeper UOM…Linda King may have already retired like her husband Tim. Sweet deals to stay on board the gravy train. Sound familiar?

  4. Anonymous says:

    Linda King is a good person. Her salary is comparable with other VPs of HR at similarly sized institutions.

  5. UO Matters says:

    I have no reason to trash talk Ms King or to “dig deeper”. Rummaging through JH and the AD is plenty for me. I posted this because it’s going to be an important job w/ unionization and the new title caught my eye. I added her salary because job applicants often use this blog to search for that sort of information and I want them to come in realizing UO Matters is a good place to get information about UO.

  6. Anonymous says:

    Why are our seminar paid so well? Same question… Why are our faculty pad so poorly?

  7. Anonymous says:

    There is nothing inappropriate in pointing out, again and again, the scandalous disparity between faculty and administrative salaries. This is in no way a judgment against individual administrators. It is rather a way of highlighting the implicit contempt for faculty, many of whom have have added to human knowledge and understanding and have national and international reputations and legacies. The disparity in salaries it is not only unjustified; it is a scandal that exposes profound blindness to what is of value, blindness that has resulted in inexcusable inequity. It’s right to keep pointing it out.

    • UO Matters says:

      For the record, I have not claimed that these particular salaries are scandalous.

    • Anonymous says:

      Somebody call a whambulance!!!

    • Anonymous says:

      Anonymous did not claim that these particular salaries were scandalous, only that the disparity between faculty salaries and administrative salaries was. It is a clear indicator of what is of value and what is not. I myself would like to hear someone justify this disparity. Why are so many effective local bureaucrats paid so much more than scholars and researchers with national and international reputations who not only teach and do service locally but also add to human knowledge and understanding in ways that are recognized across the country and around the world? Why is the local bureaucratic effectiveness of greater value than the achievement in research and scholarship, in human knowledge?

    • Fake UO Matters says:

      Supply, meet Demand. And have you both met my friend Externalities?

      I’m no economist, but you are welcome to sit in on a few Introduction to Microeconomics lectures. You’ll have a lot of your questions answered for you.

      Mondays and Wednesdays from 2:00 – 3:20 PM, in 182 Lillis. The professor is really great!

    • UO Matters says:

      So far it’s all been under the simplifying assumption of perfect competition, but I’ll get to market power and local labor monopsonies after the midterm.

    • Anonymous says:

      There is a difference between explaining and justifying.

    • Anonymous says:

      You’d like a justification for market economics?

    • Anonymous says:

      Well, yes, I’d like to hear one–as well as get a clarification of what qualifies as “market” economics–but that’s not the point. Most people would agree that market economics is not the sole factor determining salaries and so salary disparities. We do, after all, at least once every few blue moons, receive equity and even merit increases, and the latter are justified by the purported mission and values of the university. When the disparity in salaries reaches the point at which the university is clearly devaluing what it professes to value, then it becomes appropriate to ask for justification.

      And since we are on this, I do hope that the union and the administration will pay attention to merit increases and insist on a fair process for distributing them. Salaries in many departments reflect actual accomplishments very poorly, and there are many sad reasons for this. There should be a chance for faculty in the departments as well as administrators to make a big and cooperative correction here–where the mission and values of the university are most at stake.

    • Anonymous says:

      If you think administrators make so much money than go ahead and jump in. What’s that? You have no interest in such an awful job? You’d rather spend your days pondering “important” questions? Ah, perhaps a hint to the salary discrepancy…

      “Why are so many effective local bureaucrats paid so much more than scholars and researchers”

      This implies that the salary discrepancy is only a local phenomenon – it isn’t.

    • Anonymous says:

      It’s not a matter of administrators making so much money. It’s the matter of extreme disparity. If you’re saying that the disparity is justified because administrative jobs are perceived to be “awful” and do not involve “important” questions, and that this makes administrative positions undesirable, well, at least that’s an attempt at a justification, but I think I know plenty of administrators and rank and file faculty who would disagree with that assessment.

  8. Anonymous says:

    the scandal is double dipping

  9. Anonymous says:

    rumor is there is a mass exodus from HR