Northern Arizona University

Human Resources
Furloughs

Related Link: HR Mandatory Furloughs web page

Question:	Since we have lost compensatory hours and will have unpaid days of leave (mandatory furlough days) for 2010 I am proposing that furlough days not be preset by the administration and left as days staff can determine when they want to take the time off in the same way they would request vacation time within the year. This would be an incentive considering the loss. Would you consider this? Also I cannot locate the bulletin on the chart from Tuesday that showed an example of 7 day furlough and 14 day furlough. Can you tell me where I can find that grid?
Answer:	Generally, employees will be able to schedule their time off with supervisor approval. However, where operational needs dictate, supervisors may not have complete flexibility in this area. Please review the Responsibilities for Taking Furlough Time online: http://hr.nau.edu/m/content/view/1097/668/. The slide showing 7 and 14 days was an example to demonstrate the percent impact on people at different salary levels with increasing numbers of days. This slide was not discussed or used in the forum and therefore removed from the website on Tuesday. Without explanation, the slide would have been confusing. President Haeger has said that the amount of days will be up to two for those at salaries below $40,000 and up to seven for those at salaries $40,000 and above. 4/16/2009
Comment:	Cut first then furlough. I acknowledge the reality that furloughs will be needed to survive this crisis. I also realize that it will be necessary for everyone to make sacrifices during these times. I am not comfortable, however, with the idea that furloughs are being discussed and decided before serious thought into making the system more efficient. Certain cuts should be made before calculating the needed furlough amounts. For example, a faculty member teaching 3/3 or 4/4 should not endure a cut just to allow another faculty member across campus to continue teaching 2/1. These discrepancies are a reality across our campus and many reasons have been given to avoid correction. Now is the time for these reasons to be re-evaluated and changed. Cost of living: of the 70 people at NAU who earn more than 100,000 per year, only 20-30 are faculty with the remaining being administrators. This means the people who will be making the hard decisions to come are not in the same financial position as those who are likely to be impacted. These same people likely moved to Flagstaff and bought homes at a time when prices were lower. Today’s junior faculty and staff live in a different world. A junior faculty member earning $45,000-$55,000 who had to buy a house during the housing boom (i.e. $220 per square foot) has very little disposable/discretionary income. These people will be severely impacted by even a small pay decrease. Obviously, we will lose personnel through this process since many will not be able to stay in flagstaff after pay has been lowered. I have heard the ASU provost suggest that this consequence is yet another opportunity to save money. Is this really the thoughtful and mission critical method that should be used to determine which positions should be lost? 4/8/2009
Comment:	I have seen the likely scenario for furloughs in FY10 where employees with salaries of $40,000+ will take 7 furlough days and those below $40,000 will take 2 furlough days. I am concerned that the huge jump from 2 to 7 days will cause serious morale issues for people who earn just over $40,000. If I earn $40,000 and my colleague earns $39,999, I would feel that it is not fair that I have to give up so much more salary than my colleague. In fact, I would end up earning significantly less in FY10 than my $39,999 colleague, and end up suffering the very financial hardship that the administration is shielding my colleague from. I strongly feel that more categories with only 1 furlough day difference between them would be much fairer overall. I am sure that with the computerized mathematical tools available today, a solution with 7 steps in it ranging from 2 to 7 furlough days could be found that will result in the same savings to the university. I think it will be much better received than the current 2 category proposal.
Clarification:	The furlough plan has not yet been finalized. The president outlined a possible scenario in which employees making $40,000 per year and higher will take up to seven furlough days during the year. Employees earning less than $40,000 per year will take up to two furlough days. We will communicate with the campus as more information becomes available. (3/6/2009)
Comment:	The days-off-without-pay seems to be a reasonable option. Hopefully if that is enacted, individuals would have options as to when those days off could be taken. 2/17/2009
Comment:	I wish you the best of luck and insightfulness throughout your challenging policy decisions. My only suggestion would be to adopt a more lenient policy when implementing campus closures. On days like today for instance, a closure due weather would save money and help give a better financial foundation for the future. It would also help protect Faculty, Staff and Students by decreasing the risk while commuting to campus. Only having critical NAU staff present and not paying absent staff would save thousands of dollars. This money saved could possibly allow increased flexibility with fiscal policies. All non-essential staff could perhaps substitute furlough days for the days the campus is closed due to adverse weather conditions. The adoption of a lenient approach to campus closures due to adverse weather conditions will not only help our campus in a fiscal sense, but it will also ensure the safety of many individuals simultaneously. 2/12/2009
Comment:	In lieu of a furlough, allow individuals to donate the furlough dollar amount to the university. That way, the university still gets the money and the individual gets a tax right off. 2/12/2009
Comment:	I've read with great interest the comments provided by members of the community relating to proposed budget cuts. I am a lower level classified non-exempt staff. My salary does not allow me to meet my monthly expenses as it stands. To consider an across the board salary cut is extremely frightening to me. I ask the administration to consider the high cost of living in Flagstaff when making decisions about salary reductions. This being said, I fully support the idea of a furlough for a few days. While the missing income will sting, it will be limited in scope. Also, I absolutely do not support the idea of cutting vacation or sick days. The availability of paid time off is an absolutely necessary benefit from a mental health perspective in light of the financial stressors facing some of us daily. Thank you for your thoughtful consideration. 2/7/2009
Comment:	I would like to propose a possible alternative (preferable) or enhancement for the current plans to reduce the projected NAU budget deficits through furloughs or salary and wage cuts. I was driving to work this morning, listening to NPR, and realized that some of the proposed budget cuts (and issues) for NAU are similar to the cuts NPR survived in the 80's and 90's with the reduction in Federal support for NPR. Could we take a creative chapter from their book? The proposal has both an internal (NAU faculty and Staff) and an external (local, regional, etc.) target. I would propose that we model the potential impact and savings of a NPR (and possibly United Way) style fund raising campaign for NAU ---targeted at administration, faculty and staff. I would propose it only be for one year (possibly two consecutive years). Internally, faculty would be asked to contribute an amount equivalent to the furlough dollars or salary cuts that this approach would replace, using a payroll deduction process (a la United Way). This has several benefits over a simple decrease in wages, or furlough system. 1) It is temporary. 2) Since the contribution would be to a 401-C3, it would be a potential tax deduction, rather than a straight loss of income. 3) It has tremendous PR and political potential, since it would demonstrate a major commitment from the faculty and staff towards the university in these hard times, 4) It could be the basis for the Development office to conduct a parallel emergency campaign outside the university. For example, I think you could get matching grants/donations from both businesses and individuals in the community and in Arizona (perhaps nationwide) for either faculty contributions, or departmentally based contributions (Etc.). It would show the legislature some very concrete support for NAU, higher ed., the community, etc. 2/7/2009
Comment:	It is apparently being suggested that furlough days be allocated among employees based on varying salary levels, i.e., that higher-paid employees be charged with a larger number of furlough days that lower-paid employees. Salary reduction through furlough days already take into account disparate salaries. That is, the pay rate per day is not a fixed amount per employee, but is based on each employee's pay rate. To require that higher-paid employees take a larger number of unpaid furlough days, when their daily rates are already higher, would in effect result in a "double tax" on those employees. Certainly, some minimum level of furlough-exempt wage base (e.g., the $35,000 suggested in the draft Work Furlough Guidelines) seems reasonable. However, to go beyond that and charge higher-paid employees at a significantly higher rate hardly seems "fair." 2/7/2009
Comment:	For the record, I am opposed to having furloughs that do not impact teaching in any way. If instructors are only paid 90% of their salary, then they should only teach 90% of the class hours. One way to achieve that is to use the furloughs to expand Spring Break to two weeks and make Thanksgiving a week-long holiday (since so many students treat it that way anyway). 2/7/2009
Comment:	I would like to suggest the option of being able to donate the amount an employee would forfeit in a furlough situation. In other words if the employee makes $50,000 a year based on 2088 hours that is an hourly wage of $23.95 an hour. For eight hours that is $191.60. If the University is considering any type of furloughing with no pay such as one day every pay period. Provide the employee the option to take the day without pay or to make a donation to the foundation for the same amount be able to work and get paid. The funds would be earmarked in the foundation for salary adjustments. It accomplishes the same thing plus the foundation would see a huge bump that might lead to greater external giving. 2/7/2009
Comment:	Instead of faculty furloughs, I suggest that the university offer faculty the ability to take unpaid sabbaticals as a way to save money. Some faculty could take up temporary visiting positions at other universities or in the private sector, or simply do something different for awhile. While not all faculty could do this, there might be enough to make a significant impact. These could range from 8 weeks (1/2 semester) to a full year. Like regular sabbaticals, medical coverage would need to be maintained -- otherwise it would a leave of absence and I don't think anyone would want to do that. Faculty teaching requirements would also be adjusted accordingly. 2/7/2009
Comment:	It occurs to me, while all of the state employees at the 3 universities are being asked to take furloughs to share the burden of balancing the budget, would having every Arizona state employee take a short furlough help address the state's budget deficit in a broader fashion? 2/7/2009
Comment:	I would like to suggest the option of being able to donate the amount an employee would forfeit in a furlough situation. In other words if the employee makes $50,000 a year based on 2088 hours that is an hourly wage of $23.95 an hour. For eight hours that is $191.60. If the University is considering any type of furloughing with no pay such as one day every pay period. Provide the employee the option to take the day without pay or to make a donation to the foundation for the same amount be able to work and get paid. The funds would be earmarked in the foundation for salary adjustments. It accomplishes the same thing plus the foundation would see a huge bump that might lead to greater external giving. 2/7/2009
Comment:	As a faculty member I am opposed to the Faculty Senate's position that furloughs only be considered as a "last resort". I told my college senator this, but do not know if it was ever expressed to the full Senate. I believe that a permanent reduction in department funding will be far more damaging to the minimum functions that most most (not all) academic departments on the NAU campus already operate at than would a temporary furlough. 2/7/2009
Comment:	I don't know where the Faculty Senate Members are getting their numbers on suggested furlough (40,000.00 and below are exempt). We haven't even had these conversations in our College. We were only asked on a departmental level if we would support furloughs. The majority agreed with the furlough proposition. I know this may be a moot point, but I do think faculty and staff needed to have more input. If we do need to take furloughs next year, maybe we need to look at shortening the semester-Start a few days later for the Fall semester, add a few days of furlough during the winter break, and shorten the Spring semester. This way we would actually receive the break- 2/5/2009
Comment:	The most well-to-do people I know in Flagstaff are long time employees of NAU. I think it would make sense to try to get at least one person from each department / office / shop that has their 80 points to retire. I also welcome the furloughs rather than layoffs to save money. Let's take the pay cuts rather than the job cuts! 2/5/2009
Comment:	If it is ultimately determined that employees will experience furloughs, I would like to have the option of having my pay checks adjusted so that the financial impact would be spread out evenly across all pay periods remaining in the fiscal year. 2/5/2009
Question/ Rumor:	Employees that earn higher salaries will be required to take 10 days of mandatory furlough before the end of fiscal year 09? Not a bad idea IF the savings is used to keep lower paid employees able to work their full hours. Our custodial staff cannot endure any more cuts, they are already stretched so thin it's sickening. While some people don't feel daily bathroom cleaning/trash emptying is necessary, I invite them to stop by a ladies room in Building 21 after a full day of back to back packed lectures addressed to some 500+ students. Suggestion: Ask for voluntary furlough participants for those not considered in a "higher" salary bracket…we might be surprised at the number of people that would voluntarily give back a day or two if it means not loosing important services/people.
Answer:	A system of furloughs is being considered. But a final proposal has not been developed or approved. Here is a recent item in Inside NAU with some of the factors that are being considered with regard to work furloughs. 2/3/2009
Question/ Rumor:	I have heard that there will be a mandatory furlough day on either the Friday before Spring Break or the Friday of Spring Break. How much truth is in this?
Answer:	A system of furloughs is being considered. But a final proposal has not been developed or approved. Here is a recent item in Inside NAU with some of the factors that are being considered with regard to work furloughs. 2/3/2009
Comment:	Personally I would much prefer more furlough days to losing benefits. If we lose benefits, we will never get them back. With furloughs, at least, we have the hope of regaining that income in some future year. Although the salaries here are low, the health benefits are excellent. Having mediocre benefits along with mediocre salaries would make it almost impossible to recruit in the future. 2/2/2009
Comment:	Fortunately, from the President's message it is clear that we have a plan to deal with whatever cuts are decided on the FY09 budget. None are easy, but every cent counts whether it's furlough (and I hope that employees can decide whether to lump them or spread them out over the last months of the fiscal year), using savings, or shutting down bus service for a short while—we'll likely need it all. The fact is that FY 2010 is the big one. The only way we'll likely balance the budget (unless our state doesn't cut university budgets thus making us eligible for federal stimulus dollars) is the sad reality that many many people who currently work at NAU will no longer have jobs. I am in agreement with the idea that all tenured/tenure-track faculty must have a 3/3 teaching load. Non tenure-track faculty must all have a 4/4 teaching load. The only reason any faculty member would not teach a full load would be through grant buy-out. For example, if 200 faculty members currently on a 2/2 teaching load move to a 3/3 teaching load, that equates to maintaining current teaching capacity while no longer paying fifty full-time salaries/ere...equivalent to roughly $3-4 million. I have no idea how many tenure track/tenured faculty are on a 2/2 load, but it's got to be significant if the average across campus is 2/3. Once again, we must all acknowledge this means 50 of our friends/colleagues would no longer work at NAU. Since 75% of NAU's budget is dedicated to salaries/ERE, there is no way to make any significant cuts without cutting jobs. Let's hope for federal relief...which at this point would only come if our legislature and governor don't cut state funds to state universities. We'd better all get writing grant proposals! 2/2/2009
Comment:	We would like to express our support for the work furlough program. We also feel that starting it as a volunteer program would be the way to go. It may be surprising how many people step up to the opportunity to get time off for an accompanying pay cut. I am sure the details are still being worked out but we have a few questions or items to be considered during that process: Would there be a limit to how many furlough days a month that could be taken? Would health benefits be affected once a certain percent of furlough days are taken? What would be the affect on retirement? Would there be any assurances that employees that take a large number of furlough days would not be discriminated against when it comes to possible future layoffs? Basically is the University looking for employees that may be able to take a large number of furlough days for a year or two? We think this could work if it will not have an adverse affect on the benefits of that employee and allow for the employee to come back to full time status after things get a little better out there? If it did come to layoffs I would hope that those that stepped up to the plate and took a large number of furlough days would not be put first in line for layoffs. 1/30/2009
Comment:	Regarding furlough, they makes sense, but please make them meaningful. As a faculty member, I already work 7 days a week. A one day or one hour a week furlough has no impact on me, other than decreasing my salary. Two options are: Assign the number of furlough hours to the Department and let the Department decide how to split it up. Some people may prefer more unpaid days off than others. For example, could one person take an unpaid semester (or half a semester) off, which may cover the entire Department's commitment, thereby not impacting the salary of anyone else. Since (the above) is unlikely, because it gives control to the departments, please do not spread the unpaid hours/days out -- lump them all together, like in the first week of classes (delay the start of classes by a week) or in the last week of classes (give students the week off). Also, unpaid furloughs should hit higher paid people at NAU first. Do whatever you can to not do this to those who can least afford it. 1/30/2009
Question:	For folks with grant support, who are currently limited as to how much extra salary they can pay themselves because of 100% salary coverage limits, would they be able to pay themselves more from their grants to offset the furloughs? Also, could folks with grants and or contracts pay themselves for a) the portion of the furloughed days that they are "bought out" for? or b) for the whole day if it is allowed by the granting agency or the contracting agency? On a) proportional payment for furloughed days, I would assume that an individual cannot be furloughed by the university from work that is being paid for by another entity (through the grant or contract), But if this is not true, if the decision is to not pay the person for the contracted (or grant) portion of the day, does the grant or contract agency have the right to request the return of those dollars, will those dollars be carried forward to be used at a later time, or are there any other legal ramifications for the state using those funds in a way that is not part of the grant or contract conditions? On b) does the furlough essentially mean we are off contract for those days and can consult, be paid by grants or contracts, or work on a construction site (whatever) without it impacting our agreements to the state to not have substantial outside employment? It doesn't seem reasonable to take away our income and then legally restrict us from replacing it during the time period it has been taken away, since we are required to NOT work at our regular employment during those days.
Answer:	Grant-sponsored employees may be affected differently than state-funded employees. If they're 100 percent grant-funded, there may be no furloughs (the university and state wouldn't save any money). If it's a partial grant-funded position, it may be in proportion to the grant. While we think 100 percent grants will be exempted, no final plan for this has been decided. 1/30/2009
Comment:	I understand the need for Furloughs and appreciate the thoughts of trying to protect lower paid faculty and staff as we would be hit the hardest by furloughs. I would like to add the following thoughts: Furloughs that are not condensed into one time period will be very difficult (one day a month for example) If furloughs are done, making them a block of time so that we can personally save money on things like childcare would help Furloughs for non-tenured, tenure-track faculty are not a real option. Non-tenured faculty have merit marks to hit regardless of how much we get paid. Given our low salaries to start, we are basically being asked to work the same (which is already way over 40 hrs/wk) and get even less money. When promotion and tenure marks are not based on how much you work, but how much you get done we are hit very hard. Maybe asking staff and faculty for volunteer furloughs to start. I am on a nine month appointment. My husband works 12 months. If he can have furloughs that match up with my summer time, we can at least save money at home and have some real time off in exchange for our salary. Trying to be flexible on the furlough times may make it less painful for many families. Summer months seem a more reasonable time for staff furloughs since students are not around. These are some of my personal thoughts thus far. Thank you for having this avenue for us to share them. 1/28/2009
Question:	As the budget starts to squeak, I would certainly be in favor of a furlough plan (preferably a graduated type plan) rather than laying employees off. Has a 35 hour work week been considered, à la le French?
Answer:	The 35-hour-work week is not being considered, though furloughs are. A system of furloughs, in which faculty and staff would take some time off without pay, has not been developed or approved. 1/28/2009
Comment:	Dear President Haeger, Others have already proposed temporarily reducing our incomes through furloughs, etc., in lieu of laying people off. I am a strong advocate of this, as I think that our people are NAU’s greatest asset. I would like to add, however, that I think we need to be cognizant of the implications of reduced wages for those who would be hurt the most by this reduction, i.e., our custodial staff. Our custodians are on the front lines of public health. The things that they do maintain a safe and healthy environment for the rest of us. When the Norwalk Virus epidemic hit several summers ago, for example, they were out in force to quickly and efficiently sanitize our buildings and prevent the epidemic from spreading. I would suggest that custodians be exempt from major cuts or salary losses. They are already living on comparatively low salaries, yet they work hard jobs to keep NAU clean and our environment safe. Thank you for accepting our ideas. I wish you the best in the challenging times ahead. 1/27/2009
Comment:	Instead of spending more time and resources on figuring out different types of furloughs, just close the university for a couple of days (or a week?). Declare the closure to be the extend of the furloughs for this semester (for all faculty, staff, and administrators). That way we save across the board and no one can complain about being treated unfairly. Faculty can assign projects for students to work on during those days. Schedule the closure the week before spring break when many students skip classes anyway. This type of across-the-board furlough would also make quite a statement to the general public and drive home the magnitude of the budget cuts. The figures released are not always understood by everyone who hasn't been following the news closely. 1/27/2009
Comment:	Next, request sign-up for voluntary furlough. If still necessary, implement forced furlough, incremented by salary. For example: >$90,000 forced furlough of 10 days a month (re-evaluate need of further action) $76,000 - $90,000 forced furlough of 6 days a month (re-evaluate need of further action) $61,000 - $75,000 forced furlough of 3 days a month (re-evaluate need of further action) $41,000 - $60,000 forced furlough of 1 day a month (take any remaining shortfall out of Pam Brewer’s salary) $40,000 or less: exempt Begin at the top (where the most fat resides) and trim as we go. 1/27/2009
Comment:	Just a note in regards to the suggested furloughs for classified staff on campus. If we do not watch out we could be placing employees into positions where they might miss an important personal payment if their paychecks are smaller than they usually are. It would be advisable to maybe look into a sliding scale for furloughs or even capping the salaries at over $35,000 a year for furloughs in order to protect employees that need every penny of their paychecks to make ends meet. $100 out of a paycheck might not seem like very much but could mean a missed mortgage payment that is impossible to make up over time. This could lead to an employee losing their home or residence or even a vehicle relied on to make it to work. 1/26/2009
Comment:	Just another interesting comment for the board: While talking with a few co-workers about the budget today the furlough idea came up again. I haven’t talked to anyone yet who actually opposes the idea if it means that we can save all or most of our jobs and benefits at NAU. I think most employees would band together and take one or more unpaid days off per month (or whatever was determined proportionate to our salaries). I agree with the prior post that furlough should be “progressive in proportion to our salaries”; and that, “employees making less than a living wage should be exempted” or at least expected to take a lesser amount of unpaid hours/days off. If it actually comes down to the furlough, I don’t actually think it should be a voluntary option, everyone needs to pull their own weight. We’re all in this together. 1/26/2009
Comment:	To avoid layoffs in the administrative areas, I think the fairest alternative would be to reduce everyone’s hours by the same percentage (so that part-time employees will be reduced relative to the hours they work) and reduce the official hours of business accordingly. For example, if everyone’s hours are reduced by 1/40, then reduce hours of business to 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. for one day of the week. If the reduction is 2/40, reduce hours of business to 8 a.m. to 4 p.m. on two days per week, etc. Hours reductions for part-time staff should not go below 20 hours per week unless the staff are already working less than 20 hours so that benefits would not be lost. We should not pretend that severe budget cuts can be handled without reducing services. If any kind of furloughs or hours reductions (or even layoffs) are implemented, and service levels are not reduced, then workloads will increase beyond a sustainable level. Increased workloads can be handled for short periods, but when they are ongoing, they cause health problems and negatively affect performance. The end result is sick employees and dissatisfied customers. 1/23/2009
Questions/ Answers:	I have heard that there will be mandatory time off without pay for all employees. President Haegar mentioned it in his last e-mail and then after that I have heard from one source from CSAC that HR was there talking about how this would affect the staff. Another I heard from a friend of friend whose boss said there will be a mandatory one day a month off. Questions I would like to have answered are: Question: Has this been approved and just not announced to everyone? Answer: The idea of furloughs is being seriously discussed but has not been approved or announced. Question: If this has been approved when will it begin? Answer: It’s is unknown whether it can begin this fiscal year or next. That is part of the discussion. Question: Will this mandate be across the university? (EX: How will faculty give one day? Will administrators have the same mandate and pay cut?) Answer: It will affect all employees: staff, faculty and administrators. It is possible for faculty to take furlough days. Grant-sponsored employees may be affected differently. If they’re 100 percent grant-funded, there may be no furloughs (the university and state wouldn’t save any money). If it’s a partial grant-funded position, it may be in proportion to the grant. While we think 100% grants will be exempted, no final plan for this has been decided. Question: Are there any options to the plan where it could be half a day every payday? Answer: Half-day per pay periods will be looked at in the planning. It depends on the size of the budget cut. Again, nothing has been decided. Question: How will this affect vacation and sick leave accrual, will it be adjusted that the current rate of accrual is lessened? Answer: It has not been determined yet if vacation and sick time can be handled differently than other leave without pay in which sick and vacation leave is not accrued—we are considering that in the planning. However, contributions to retirement accounts may be impacted by small amounts. Question: I would think that is one day could not be taken as vacation or sick pay? Answer: Taking vacation during a furlough day does not save money. Sick time, because of the restrictions of its use, also cannot be used as a furlough day. This may not seem like a huge amount of money to some people but it is a couple of monthly payments for me so I need to start making plans. Thank you for the opportunity to ask the question. 1/21/2009
Comment:	For what it is worth---I would love to take leave without pay, as I think the state was talking about—I don’t know how many other folks would be willing, but what if it were voluntary?? I really need my health insurance most of all, but I would love to have a shorter paycheck if I could work fewer hours per week. Our building (Cline) has too many lights on all the time. I wouldn’t suggest turning off bathroom lights, but unused offices certainly. We also are open many hours when we have very little business. I don’t believe my superiors want to be open fewer hours, but it would save money in student wages, lighting, etc. I believe we should try harder to do conference calls or webinars instead of traveling to meetings. I think food should not be provided at events—maybe just coffee and tea. I wish very much that university athletics could be done in a more environmentally friendly manner, which in turn would help the budget. I know it is a big money maker, but from an academic’s viewpoint, that’s not what students should be here for. Intramurals get everyone a lot of exercise and they stay in Flagstaff. Consider sharing some administrators between departments—and I don’t mean the secretaries, I mean the money makers. What if Geology and Environmental Sciences were under one department head, for goodness sake. Find ways to make grants work for real! I know that some wonderful grants on campus have been piddled away. 1/21/2009
Comment:	If work furloughs (not to be actual layoffs) are to be imposed, they should go to those who already have 80 or more points toward retirement. 1/21/2009
Comment:	I’m concerned about the possibility of staff furloughs. Certainly, taking mandatory time off is preferable to employees losing their jobs, but I’m barely making ends meet on my current salary. I don’t believe I could continue to afford living in Flagstaff if my salary were reduced. 1/21/2009
Comment:	I hope the university considers voluntary reduction in workload— Some staff and faculty may choose to reduce pay for release time. 1/21/2009
Question:	If NAU decides to furlough employees how would the source of salary funding impact employees? For instance if a classified staff member’s salary is funded 100% from a grant, would they be subject to the furlough or reduction in force?
Answer:	Although nothing is finalized, it appears that if an employee is 100 percent grant funded, they would not be subject to furloughs. The reason is because it would not save the university or the state any funds. If an individual is partially grant funded, it could be a proportional furlough. 1/21/2009
Comment:	I like the idea of a work furlough in order to save money. It seems to me that would be one of the most equitable ways of cutting the budget, in that it would affect all employees equally and would not be too much of a burden for any individual. I wouldn’t mind taking unpaid days in order to help the overall effort. I would certainly prefer that to employees losing jobs. Thank you for the chance to participate. 1/21/2009
Comment:	Would it be possible to combine the days off into a week- Students could be given projects, community service or other items while faculty were "away." As a teaching faculty, this makes sense to me rather than a day here or there. It would also give faculty the option of doing something more substantive with the "time off" and might make the pay cut a bit less..... I'm sure the adminstrators and faculty are really viewing this as a pay cut because the reality is that most of us will still be here working. A block of time would allow me to write a grant (and meet with other faculty) or revise a class, or go to a workshop without impacting any classes. 1/21/2009
Question:	Will faculty still get benefits if they are mandated to take a work furlough? Would you accept volunteers if benefits remain?
Answer:	While the university is still working through the specific details of any furlough plan, employees will not lose health benefits through this process (i.e. health, dental, life…..). Contributions based on a percentage of pay, such as retirement, will be minimally reduced. 1/15/2009
Comment:	I would definitely be in favor of furloughs, if the amount of money we must cut requires this type of measure. My support for furloughs is conditioned by the following criteria: (1) the furloughs should be progressive by being in proportion to our salaries; (2) those employees making less than a living wage should be exempted. 1/14/2009
Comment:	I just read President Haeger’s budget email and wanted to address the idea of work furloughs he mentioned. In general I think it’s a good idea. Many people on campus, myself included, would choose to take some days off without pay rather than lose our jobs, or see colleagues lose their jobs. Losing a little pay is better than losing our jobs and benefits! Some people might actually welcome the chance to spend extra time with their families, even if it means sacrificing some pay. But I would urge you to consider making this optional and not mandatory, at least at first. Maybe if enough of us who could afford it stepped forward to do this, it would protect those for whom losing pay would cause problems. 1/14/2009
Comment:	I was reading the comments and I agree with one comment regarding taking two to four days off a month without pay. If some people don’t agree with that, NAU can make that on a volunteer basis. First of all we all prefer to keep our jobs and benefits and take some pay cut rather than entirely lose our jobs. Secondly many of us have young children that we would love to spend more time with and staying home few days a months without pay will also cut down the cost of child care and gives us more time with our families. I hope if NAU decides to go in that route they will specially offer this option to classified staff. 1/14/2009
Comment:	I would definitely be in favor of furloughs, if the amount of money we must cut requires this type of measure. My support for furloughs is conditioned by the following criteria: (1) the furloughs should be progressive by being in proportion to our salaries; (2) those employees making less than a living wage should be exempted. 1/14/2009