Bad news on future pay

9/26/2013: As near as I can tell UO has been spending about $50K a month on Sharon Rudnick and Kate Grado from HLGR to do the negotiating with the union, and another $30K or so a month for lawyers and consultants to write Barbara Altmann’s “fact check” website. That’s a lot of money for the rather pathetic FAQ they’ve posted on the union contract, here.

Ignoring their rather interesting spin on the IP, computer files, and consulting issues, there’s some astonishingly deceptive stuff comparing tuition and salary increases. They ignore the 2012-13 tuition increases, when faculty got nothing, and the fact that the legislature paid UO the difference between the 5% and 3.5% tuition increases:

Whatever. The real news is that Gottfredson has abandoned the Lariviere goal to get faculty pay to our comparators:

Q. Won’t faculty salaries remain far below our peers and AAU comparators? 

A. The salary package — which includes across-the-board raises, merit increases, promotion raises and money for tenure track and tenured faculty equity and NTTF salary floors — will move faculty salaries in the right direction. It is also important to look at total faculty compensation (salary + benefits). When benefits are included the gap closes substantially between the University and our comparator universities.

Of course, when differences in summer money etc. are added in, the gap gets wider. The bottom line is that Gottfredson just doesn’t think the UO faculty are worth more money (although he’s got a nice $360K fallback salary as a sociology professor). Compare the above with the language from Coltrane’s 2011 (draft) CAS Equity proposal:

c. Step 3 (as early as FY 2012/13 and no later than FY 2013/2014), increases based on internal equity and merit.

The total amount of funding made available for salary increases by the College in Step 3 will be at least the amount necessary to increase the College’s average salaries to make up the remaining distance to the average salaries of the OUS 8 comparators. 

 So, it’s looking like I was excessively optimistic with this forecast that we’d catch up to the AAU public average by 2021:

But hey, what about that goat! Yes, Gottfredson is throwing the faculty a bone, in the form of a few thousand in one time catch-up payments, a month or so after we sign the union contract. Here’s the math:

Tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to Bad news on future pay

  1. Anonymous says:

    Can someone explain what happens with the new 6 year PTR increment for fulls if you have just had a 6 year PTR? Does the increased amount come retroactively, or is it necessary to wait another 5 years to get the increased amount?

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
    • Awesome0 says:

      Gotta wait 5 years. I really wish the union had made a counterproposal to make this PTR’s retroactive for the last two years. In stead, will be into our third contract before that part is fully phased in.

      VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
    • Anonymous says:

      Dog says

      1) I just had a six year review – no retro-activity involved

      2) Thanks UO Matters for publishing the CAS plan draft and for finding that document (produced in Feb 2011 I believe). I think it
      backs up everything I have been saying about the CAS raise plan which only was able to
      implement Step 1.

      I remain convinced that most CAS TTF faculty would have a higher salary now, under that draft plan,
      than the current bargaining has produced (although Step 2 of that plan was going to be messy).

      VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
    • UO Matters says:

      Yes, CAS TTF certainly would have done better. And the union proposed additional merit and equity money, very close to the Coltrane plan. But Gottfredson and Rudnick kept cutting it.

      VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
      Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)
  2. Awesome0 says:

    The fact that they don’t feel the need to try to catch up to our comparators is sending bad signals to those of us trying to make up our minds about long term plans weighing other options.

    The signals I get are

    1. We might get kicked out the AAU soon, and they are planning on it. Problem is, that attitude is a self-fulfilling prophecy.

    2. Outside offers get more attractive when they don’t at least announce what they think our comparators are (Rudnick made it very clear it ain’t the OUS or AAU comparators)

    3. If there is a strategic vision for the rest of money, why don’t they please share it? If its going to make the UO better, we’d be excited about it. Otherwise at leads us to think it’ll just go to satisfy Jaime’s domesday worries about tornadoes, etc.

    The lack of vision and strategic planning is truly scary when you think how much additional revenue they’ve raised over the last 7 years. Instead we appear to get a never ending supply org chart revisions.

    All too often when clear priorities aren’t made additional money gets sucked down a giant black hole of consultants and special project.

    VA:F [1.9.22_1171]
    Rating: 0 (from 0 votes)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.