8/26/2013: Updated elevator version: We’re going down. During the first year of Gottfredson’s administration UO faculty pay has fallen still further behind other AAU public universities:
Full profs: down from 85% to 82%
Associate profs: down from 92% to 90%
Assistant profs: down from 93% to 89%
In fact UO’s average pay for assistants and fulls has actually fallen, presumably because of composition changes, though the % drops are mostly driven by pay raises at the other AAU schools. The retroactive 1.5% ATB raise proposed by the admin’s for 2012-13 is only for 6 months, so it’s really only a 1% raise, although it will show up in the AAU data as 1.5%. Sneaky. Either way it is not close to enough to make up for the ~3% UO faculty lost relative to other AAU publics between fall 2011 and fall 2012. Much less enough to get the elevator going up.
Cocktail party version:
No updates yet on the latest raises for central administrators – it’s almost as if Johnson Hall doesn’t want to make those public until after the faculty contract is signed. Rumor is they’ll make the big ones retroactive, to keep them out of the upcoming quarterly reports.
Note that we have no reliable data for NTTF comparisons. While the report says UO instructors earn 124% of the AAU average, that’s because for some bizarre reason the AAU only reports salaries for tenured instructors. At UO that’s only 6 people, mostly in sciences. In comparison we have ~1000 NTTFs, none of whom show up in these data. Crazy.
The admin bargaining proposal is for 10.5% over three years. But of course salaries at our peers will increase too, probably at a faster rate given the recovery. So the % of peers column will at best look pretty much the same in 2016, and probably worse by 4% points or so. And every year our administration sits on their pile of reserves means many more thousands in salary gap dollars that we will never see.
Summary data below, the IR page is here. For the masochists, or those looking to go on the market, the breakouts by department and rank are here. Increases at the other AAU’s mean that my own salary comparison has fallen from 67% to 61% of peers in one year. (And please, former interim provost Jim Bean, check the footnotes before posting your usual nonsense comments about medical school salaries.)
Benefits:
Rumor down at the faculty club thrift store is that the administration is going to trot out Tim Gleason to do PR pushing the argument that, after benefits are included, their proposal gets us up to peer averages. I’ve seen Gleason’s efforts at public speaking. This should be fun:
UO Matters operatives are standing by, ready to translate Tim’s benefit ramblings into English, and then disembowel them line by line.
What can you do about it?
Show up from 9AM-4PM Thursday at the Library to support your colleagues on the union’s hard-working bargaining team, as they present a counter to the administration’s proposal.
From Fall 2012:
From Fall 2011:
From Fall 2009:
68,600 $ for instructors????? Nobody I know, evidently.
Jokers.
Yep, the number is correct. Those are the six TENURED instructors in the sciences. Every other instructor on campus is NTTF.
the sciences know better than I, but based on what I’ve lheard from science folk over the years, these TTF instructors apparently reflect their department-level priorities, such as teaching in and running large-scale science instructional programs and the accompanying labs on a full-time basis and typically result from external hires in national searches for a TTF instructor, rather than a TTF assistant professor. One could reasonably argue that teaching in and running say, the large-scale English Composition or RL Spanish-language program on a full-time basis is roughly comparable and if so, a similar strategy might be pursued if the corresponding departments preferred,
Yes, it is a good strategy. Unfortunately, word through the rumor mill is that UO plans not to hire any more tenure-track instructors.
The union’s original 18.5% proposal would have got the UO faculty close to peer averages by fall 2015. The administration’s 10.5% offer is not most likely not enough to keep the status quo, making reasonable assumptions about raises at the other AAU’s.
Retirement benefits for most current PERS Tier 1 profs are good, but the number of faculty in that category is steadily falling, and post 1995 hires are in retirement plans that are similar to the AAU average. Additionally, Tier 1 benefits have just been cut, and the governor is working hard to cut them some more.
I hope the bargaining team has a field day with these latest numbers at bargaining session Thursday. I’ll certainly be there to hear the administration’s response. It will be very unfortunate if they don’t react to this depressing new data with a much better, fact based offer.
Actually, apart from the 6% “pickup” — which boosts everyone’s total compensation comparison by 5-6% — the Tier 1 people (who must comprise about half the faculty) get another 5% or so, as do the Tier 2 people who are in the optional retirement plan (ORP), if I am not mistaken. So my guesstimates in a post below are not too far off, and they don’t put UO in too bad a light.
see my cost v. benefit of benefits comment below
If that’s not an incentive to dust off your CV, what is??
Regarding instructors, is that why they wanted to change the definition of instructor, to make things look better relative to comparators??
It seems like equity has to be addressed, if we want to keep hiring and retaining good people, especially in the units with the biggest lags.
I’m interested in betting on whether the admins do anything on finances on thursday. Given the anticipated faculty turnout, I’d like to take the position that they’ll punt on it, and move it to another day.
Question: do those numbers include the 6% pickup of employee PERS contributions? If not, augment them by 6%.
Do the peer numbers also include pick-ups? It is not a perk only offered to Oregon employees.
Good question. It is not unique to Oregon, but it is rare elsewhere.
The most relevant measure is “total compensation” which includes benefits including extra pension benefits.
Generally, UO in comparison with its 8 OUS-designated comparator schools gets as much as 10% tacked on to its total compensation rating — depends on faculty rank — mostly due to pension benefits.
UO’s pension benefits were once unusually generous. Faculty were retiring and getting more in pension than they’d got in salary – sometimes dramatically more. Eugene once had cheap housing and very good public schools. These were all effective recruiting tools for me, and a large part of reason I choose UO over another offer.
Now Eugene’s housing prices are median to high, and schools are below average. UO pension benefits for new hires are average (plenty of other schools have generous plans too). The Legislature’s SB 822 has cut pension payouts, and Kitzhaber is hard at work trying to organize a special legislative session to cut them more.
When the administration says that UO’s benefits are better than at other schools, what they really mean is that they are more expensive. This is because about a third of what is paid into PERS for you goes to fund the generous benefits of those who retired before you. Similarly for medical care: OUS employees are healthier than most state employees, and we subsidize their medical benefits.
If you look at what UO faculty can reasonably expect to receive in benefits, it’s average, if that.
Of course the administrators can expect all sorts of special deals, up to and including President Gottfredson’s special supplementary retirement plan.
I doubt that cost of living in Eugene is especially high or low in relation to comparators — you want to compare Iowa City, etc. then also be prepared for Seattle, Boulder, Santa Barbara. Whatever the state of Eugene schools, I don’t see how UO is responsible for that or can do much.
You have a point about pension costs vs. benefits. (I think much less for medical.) Still — the 6% pickup is real and should be included for everyone. The amount of PERS contributions going for past retirees is hard to figure, and in any case, varies with annual market returns in a way that is very complicated to deal with. And don’t forget the ORP people of Tier 1 and Tier 2 vintage — in accord with the agreement the state made with them, the are currently getting a pretty nice deal.
PERS cuts are something to watch, but so far they have been pretty mild, and are of questionable legality so they may not last.
OVERALL, I would maintain that you should add 5-6% for the assistant and associate profs, if only because of the pickup; and somewhere between 5-10% for the full professors, I think closer to 10%, but at least 7-8% if only because of the ORP people.
If you want to get more accurate, it would take a lot more work by someone with a lot more info than I have handy.
One more thing — my estimates here of how much to add for UO benefits to total compensation comparisons — right or wrong, they are my own, and not based on any official UO comparisons to “comparators.”
Housing prices from https://uomatters.com/2010/03/home-prices-in-college-towns.html Links are broken but Eugene was 140% of college town median.
Housing of course is part of the mix, but only part, and varies in time. Here’s a Eugene chamber of commerce site with a comparison of some composite cost of living figures:
http://www.eugenechamber.com/community/facts_figures.aspx
If you want to look at our OUS comparators — Eugene compares quite favorably with Seattle — and I venture to guess with Santa Barbara, Boulder.
In fact, no need to guess, you can go here and compare city-by-city:
http://www.bestplaces.net/cost-of-living/eugene-or/charlottesville-va/50000
Be my guest: UCSB, UW, Boulder, Ann Arbor, Iowa City, Bloomington, UVa, UNC — overall, I don’t think you’ll find Eugene is that expensive.
The city by city cost of living link very interesting, Uncle B!
Regardless of UO’s influence on the local housing market, if the administration wishes to remain competitive and offer a legitimate educational experience, it must best respond to local housing, as well as many other influences on our quality of life. All else equal, if housing prices rise then UO admins should expect to have to increase faculty salaries just to remain equivalent in quality. Likewise, if local schools decline then UO admins should expect to have to increase faculty salaries. My take is that faculty don’t respond much to football success or extravagant athletic expenditures, so the reverse does not hold true… that UO admins can compensate equal-quality faculty with football trappings instead of money.
So — when housing prices crashed in 2007 and beyond, should UO have cut faculty salaries?
As you go through city by city, be sure to factor in whether each comparator offers housing assistance. HUB has mentioned Santa Barbara a couple of times, but the UC system offers subsidized mortgages and in some cases price-controlled faculty housing. And it is not unusual to get a chunk of money toward a down payment as part of a startup negotiation. So the UCSB faculty aren’t on comparable footing to UO faculty.
I’m not sure how common those kind of arrangements are at other universities in hot housing markets, but don’t make the mistake of assuming you’re making apples-to-apples comparisons when you use those online calculators.
Hell, NYU gives subsidized loans for your vacation house too! Or they did until the Times wrote about it.
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/18/nyregion/nyu-gives-stars-loans-for-summer-homes.html?pagewanted=all
Using Uncle B’s link, Santa Barbara is overall 37% more expensive to live in than Eugene. And Santa Barbara’s housing is 88% more expensive than Eugene. Sobering numbers…
More information on a couple of our comparators:
* UCSB faculty housing resources, including subsidized loans (currently 3.0%) and faculty housing:
http://www.housing.ucsb.edu/faculty-housing
* CU system’s (including Boulder) faculty housing program, with subsidized loans:
https://www.cu.edu/content/faculty-housing-assistance-program
Anybody got any others?
I don’t know about the rest of you full professors, but 85% is aspirational for me. And yes, the 6% is nice, but when you are below comparators by 30-40% in many cases, that 6% doesn’t go very far.
And don’t forget that outside of Tier 1, the retirement benefits are not so sweet. There is no way to get around it–we are well under market.
Shouldn’t we be comparing salaries to the University of Dayton and other universities with a similar national ranking? Dayton full professors average $108,000 so it seems we are doing well!
Good point. How are our administrators and coaches doing along side Dayton? That might be a potential source of savings.
I tend to agree with the previous comment that the Admin strategy will likely avoid responsibility and punt. Mr. Gleason appears to be readying (with the UO’s PR firm) to escalate a campaign to publicly argue that high-paid, whiny faculty are fiscally irresponsible – and the Admin is the source of integrity at UO. Does he think this will win him something? I doubt he appreciates how such an anti-faculty campaign will impact relations on this campus. And about that Admin integrity, where are the other invoices for the UO’s million-dollar bargaining team, PR firm, and legal consultants in San Fran, all those tuition dollars being spent to try and hammer faculty? Do any of the Admins realize how easy it would be to restore confidence and morale at this institution? The door is still open. But, it remains vital that we show up on Thurs. and, whether they punt or not, sign-up for Week of Welcome actions, where the tremor will begin.
well, if what I posted below is not too far from the mark — maybe Mr. Gleason has a bit of a case?
Actually, the comparison at the UO website is pretty revealing:
http://ir.uoregon.edu/sites/ir.uoregon.edu/files/5-Yr%20Comp%20for%20Web_Aug2013.pdf
UO salaries had been improving pretty steadily over the past few years.
Gottfredson can hardly be entirely to blame for a raise process that involves two parties now, this year.
Throw in the extra pension benefits at Oregon — they are not included in the posted numbers, see the UO doc — and you raise total compensation for assistant and associate profs by 6% — a bit less if you do the arithmetic correctly — and by about 1/8 — OK, 10% if you do the arithmetic correctly — for full profs (assuming somewhat simplistically, but not too inaccurately for statistical purposes, that they are Tier 1 and Tier 2).
So at the end of 2011-12, by my rough reckoning, UO was at
95% parity for full profs
95% associate profs
97% assistant profs
To put this in context, the goal of the old 2000 “White Paper” was to reach 95% parity in total compensation with our OUS peers — we lagged far behind this then.
So a lot of progress has been made since then — the goals of that time were pretty much achieved!
You may think we still come up short, but this is some needed perspective here.
Some people might also wonder — is UO really at the level of either our OUS comparators (all from AAU) or the average AAU public university?
You might not like that question, but seeing as how it looks like UO is going to be booted out of the AAU, it might be legit.
Hi Bernie – Your thoughts on my benefits info above would be welcome. Regarding UO quality, there’s lots of variation but it might surprise you how good on average. See
https://uomatters.com/2010/09/idiots-guide-to-nrc-rankings.html
For the health benefits – the subsidy for other state workers costs UO about $10M a year: http://community.statesmanjournal.com/blogs/stateworkers/2013/06/05/oregon-university-system-wants-out-of-pebb/
so about 5% of salary for bargaining unit faculty
5% of our salary goes to subsidize health benefits for other state workers? You sure? Has that gone up?
In the first place, I have no idea how other state schools compare in this — do they provide their own insurance, or are they in state plans as OUS is? I have no way of knowing.
But re the report in the link you give — in the first place, the savings are for two years, not one. They are $67 million (if OUS self insures) and $49 million (apparently, if OUS buys outside insurance rather than self-insuring). For ~ 13,000 covered workers, that works out to approximately $2600 per year or $1900 per year per person.
So in making comparisons, we’re talking about $0 – $2600 per year per person.
Re UO quality — I don’t want to get into a putting-down-UO-mode — but those %iles of the NRC rankings are for all schools ranked, not just AAU — I would maintain that on the whole, UO is at or near the bottom of the AAU — I’d be very surprised if we’re any longer up there with any of our OUS “comparators” — certainly not with Michigan, Virginia, N. Carolina!
It’s old data, that’s for sure. And for some disciplines there are indeed many non AAU schools in the pool.
Sure the 6% retirement contribution is nice, but I think it’s easy to over-emphasize how it might distinguish UO compensation from that of other schools, especially for new/recent hires. Many universities have matching contributions, which as I understand it is not the case for recent hires at UO. Some univerities *multiply* faculty contributions up to a certain point (i.e., you put in at least 2% and the University puts in 6%). I’ve taught at two other universities. One offers something that I think is at least as good as what UO offers (they multiply faculty contributions at a variable rate but it usually came to a maximum of 6% or more per year) and perhaps better; the other offers something less good, but with higher salaries that more than makes up the difference. So yes, figuring out overall compensation is difficult and I think various matching schemes need to be taken into consideration in figuring out how generous the 6% is compared to other schools. Or am I completely wrong here? I’ll have to admit that I have a hard time making sense of the retirement options offered at UO!
Not correct — Oregon certainly still has a matching contribution.
If you’re in PERS, I believe it’s about 8% and constitutes a “defined benefit” contribution — as opposed to the “defined contribution” nature of the “employee contribution” of 6% (which is actually picked up by the employer). If you’ve opted to be outside of PERS, the “match” is closer to a straight 6%, is my recollection.
It’s a mess. See http://www.oregon.gov/pers/mem/Pages/section/form/plan_definitions.aspx. There’s PERS Tier 1 and 2 and OPSRP and IAP and ORP and I think a new plan that the legislature approved. And then there’s the TRP. Ernie Pressman’s website at http://benefits.uoregon.edu/retirement.html is a starting point.
Bottom line though, is that with recent reforms UO’s retirement plans are now pretty average in terms of benefits you can expect when you retire.
They are quite expensive to UO, but that’s because we are still paying for past loopholes, which have now been mostly closed. See Ted Sickinger on Mike Bellotti, Dave Frohnmayer, and much more: http://www.oregonlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2011/11/top_beneficiary_of_oregon_publ.html
Uncle Bernie,
And what would you say about the departments where the gap is closer to 35-40 percent?? I think the external equity comparisons and adjusts only make sense when comparing within departments for pretty obvious compositional reasons. Means are also very sensitive to outliers such as endowed chairs. It seems like the more reasonably comparisons should be done by median, mode, or other measures of central tendency.
Take for instance sociology, economics, international studies, theatre arts. For some ranks in those departments gaps appear that are so dramatic, it seems corrective action needs to be taken. I worry that union will focus on NTTF floors, ATB raises, and not recognize there are some departments where the disparity relative to both productivity and external comparisons is hugely problematic and will create long term retention problems if not addressed. I would prefer the administration being using the negotiations as a method to bargain over the proper distribution to improve the university. However, Rudnick has made it very clear she doesn’t care how we distribute it, she just doesn’t want us to get more than 10.5
The last reforms — apart from ongoing attempts to cut PERS — were in 2003, when Tier 3 was created.
And yes, Tier 3 benefits are pretty average — that was the intent — but even Tier 3 people still have the 6% pickup — which is worth an additional 5-6% in total compensation comparisons — which is all that I have claimed anywhere on this page for Assistant and Associate professors, who I’m assuming (somewhat stingily to the University) are all Tier 3.
If you are Tier 2 or heaven help us Tier 1 or perhaps especially if you are Tier 1 ORP, there is no way the pension benefits are “average” even if you don’t count the 6% “pickup” (and you should count it).
So I stick to my estimate that the pickup alone is worth a 5-6% premium on total compensation; being Tier 1 is probably worth 5% more, at least.
About departments where the gaps are larger — I’ve only been looking here at the big picture, not individual departments or ranks within departments, after all, I’m just enjoying a Sunday afternoon lol, I don’t do this for a living — of course the relevant deans should look to see if there are real inequities, and attempt to correct them if there are.
I think you are unfortunately probably correct about what might happen with the union-administration dynamic — pre-union, my experience was that things were much more flexible — for both better and worse.
Thanks, HUB, for the explanation–I think I understand better how the system works. There is the defined benefit contribution, which will help folks who stay at UO for more than 5 years, and then the “Individual account program,” where the 6% employer contribution–which vests immediately and is currently being picked up by the University–goes. Figuring out how that system compares with other universities is tricky, though, I think. It looks like new faculty at Indiana University get 10% contributed into a 403b by the University and at the University of Michigan, if a faculty member contributes 5%, the University puts in 10% into a 401b. (Faculty who have been at IU for a long time hae a better deal–pre 1989 it looks like they get 15%; vesting occurs after 3 years, so if you leave before then, you don’t get any of the University contribution, whereas at UO you would get the 6%; it looks like at the U of M, you also vest immediately, but the 10% contribution doesn’t start until you’ve been there for a year.) Neither IU nor Michigan have a “Defined benefit” program, so far as I can tell after my hasty research. So anyway, I think it would be difficult to figure out exactly how all these systems compare for the average employee.
Nameless — it is pretty complicated — I think 9 or 10% employer contribution + required employee contribution of about 6% used to be pretty common at universities — but it is complicated, and that’s why some sort of standardized accounting is needed in making comparisons. But even standardized reporting can lead to inaccuracies, e.g. is the contribution really going to the employee or is it just disappearing into some black hole?
I’m doing the best I can with what I know (and can find out), I stick to my estimate of UO premium of 5-6% because of the pickup, and another 5% or so for those getting the full benefit of being Tier 1.
If anyone can do better, I’m all ears.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Sounds like admin PR person, I mean Bernie, needs help with math. UO faculty already at 95% of AAU comparators? Just add numbers out of your head and voila, fixed…
Well instead of false ad hominem insinuations, and aspersions on my math skills, how about pointing out where I have gone wrong in my estimates or been unclear in my reckoning, if you really believe that?
You added percentage points to a ranking relative to other salary composites by assuming those other composites would not change with additional new information analagous to that which you haphazardly pull out of your ass for the UO.
I hope you’re as witty in person as you are here. If you teach at UO, I’m sure your students appreciate you when challenged by them in class!
I used the salary info posted here at UOMatters and in the link provided. If you have better information, please inform us. As for the information “analagous [sic] to that which I pull out” here — do let us know in what your disagreement consists. For example, is the 6% pickup figure inaccurate?
Let’s try to keep this discussion on the facts. Plenty of nasty numbers here, no need to get personal, “Sounds like” commenter.
Here’s a fact, from the Bellotti story.
The admin is going to claim the fact we have to pay for his $500K a year PERS – because they neglected to set aside anything for it – is somehow a benefit to the faculty, which boosts our “post-benefit” compensation, and excuses their failure to deal with faculty salaries.
Fuck them.
http://www.oregonlive.com/politics/index.ssf/2011/12/mike_bellotti_former_universit.html
Bellotti says he’s no expert in PERS calculations, but his initial understanding was that the UO athletic department and his own contributions were funding his pension, and not one penny would come from the State of Oregon or its taxpayers.
But that doesn’t pencil out. At retirement, Bellotti’s post divorce account balance was only $300,000. The university made its own contributions over the 21 years he was employed. But combined, they won’t come close to covering the $5 million benefit reserve that PERS established to cover his payments. Moreover, that reserve may underestimate the costs, depending on the state’s investment returns and Bellotti’s longevity.
To make up the difference, PERS draws on benefit reserves of its state and local government rate pool, which includes institutions of higher education, community colleges, state agencies and cities. Over time, all members of the pool will pay for the benefits, giving them less money to hire teachers, cops or provide services.
Said PERS Deputy Director Steven Rodeman: “To the extent that we underasked, those costs will go up in the future.”
Bernie, you do not see the problem of tagging the 6% directly onto the percentile rankings do you?
The actual calculation goes like this (Just ignore medical benefits, unless you want to make it a bit more complicated):
If salary is say, 0.93 and pickup is worth 6%, a better figure for “true” salary is
0.93 x (1.06) = (0.93 + 0.0586) = 0.986.
So yes, it’s a bit less than 6% — it depends on the fractional base salary i.e. 0.93 in the example above — that’s why I said 5-6% — but it’s pretty close. Just use 5% and you’re probably underestimating.
So what are you adding to the AAU peers? Nothing. You can’t just add to ours without changing what it is you are comparing.
Anon, huh? You’re not making sense, none at all.
You added percentage points to a ranking relative to other salary composites by assuming those other composites would not change with additional new information analagous to that which you haphazardly pull out of your ass for the UO.
I’ll just use myself as an example. I’m Tier 1 and in the optional retirement program, so I get a monthly contribution to my independent 401k type plan in lieu of PERS.
Every month for the last biennium I got 22% of my salary put into TIAA. That is 6% employee contribution (which I don’t pay it’s picked up) and 16% employer contribution.
By comparison, where I worked before I moved here — admittedly a long time ago — my employer put in 9% and I put in 5% out of my own pocket.
In addition, I get the 8% guaranteed return on the money in my pre-ORP PERS account. Quite nice to have had during and since the stock market market crash of 2009!
So there’s no way my pension benefits are “average.”
Furthermore — at my old university, I paid about 20% of my health insurance, here it’s only 5% at least at present.
So if I’m actually making 85% of “comparator” salary I can easily see how adding in another 10% for better benefits makes sense — bringing the total up to 95%. I’d like it to be 100% (or more) but as Uncle Bernie notes, 95% is a lot better than full profs were getting a dozen years ago.
Anecdote, it’s good for you, but glosses over other salary prvlems here that the previous president understood and seemed cincerned about. many of those problems remain. a lot of associates make less than new assistants, or close to new hires. Colleagues leave and are easily offered 20% more elsewhere. The “I am ok” attitude glosses too many problems and no doubt justifies in action.
Sure, inequities should be dealt with on a case by case basis, as Uncle says.
As I said, I’m just an example who seems not to fit into the narrative that we’re all getting screwed at UO.
Lariviere is gone — now it’s the admin and the union.
Congrats, Not Complaining Bernie, you really lucked out.
The rest of us are paying to subsidize other people’s retirement. Bad enough, but now the administration is insulting us by calling that a “benefit” and using it to justify low pay.
My colleagues who have left have gone to other public institutions comparably ranked, and have gotten raises ranging from 40 to 60 percent. They were offered counter-offers ranging from 0 to 5 percent.
That’s a lot more than any difference in retirement benefits.
^ Here’s something UO can compete on… lowest counter offers. I’ve heard of 5,000 retention offer in response to an outside offer that doubled compensation.
Heck if UO did better on counteroffers that would definitely improve the salary average salary comparisons.
The name is not ‘complaining too much.’
Did I luck out? Maybe, but I took the deal that was offered to everyone else at that time. Am I really better off having left PERS? Well, during the stock market crash of 2008 I didn’t get no 8% guarantee, I took a huge loss, so it’s not clear. There are still a lot of advantages to being in PERS. If you don’t believe me, go to the PERS website and do the pension estimator, you might be astounded at how good it is.
To those who can get their salary doubled by going to another public university, I say take it! But that doesn’t mean the salaries here are only half what they should be.
Uncle Bernie, you seem to have impressive command of these issues, and you’re pretty cool about it!
It’s too bad the UO administration doesn’t have you as a spokesperson — you explain things far more to their advantage than they do! — or as a negotiator on the other side, for that matter.
I gotta go grab some take-out. You guys don’t be to hard on Uncle Bernie, OK? He’s just doing his job.
Bernie still needs a math lesson as he seems to have no problem just adding numbers onto the percentile rankings of AAUs salary averages. Good PR, poor reckoning.
Anonymous, the math is not too complicated, I presented it above.
If you see a problem with what I did, let me know?
That is your problem, you assume you can add benefits to compensation at UO while ignoring it elsewhere… Your full of talking points for admin, no integrity with your analysis, and present your apples to oranges as if objective. What a sham! If this is what UO admin is pushing, I would like to know who is approving such dishonesty.
Anonymous, Uncle’s methodology is perfectly clear, he presented the equation above, it makes sense to me — you are just blowing stuff.
Anon, the arithmetic is fine, but you cannot just add points To ours without changing what it is you are comparing with our AAU peers. You must also add their benefits. Bernie fails to do so, in fact he set on refusing to.
If Gottfredson isn’t going to pay us more than 10.5%, he’d better have the goddam common courtesy to give us a reach-around, by opening the books and explaining his reasons in detail and in person.
For the Union negotiators reading, every time they don’t move on a counter, we shouldn’t move, but front load the raises more and more because all Jaime cares about is recurring dollars right? If the admins are going to only care about, fine, make the 10.5 retroactive to last fall.
front load the 14.5, you mean.
Sure. And make it retroactive to last September.
Are you sure it’s the Dean Tim Gleason and not this Tim Gleason:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z69HCpGR9SA
Lesson from Milan Lucic:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c63DFuCaXhY
I don’t understand how these compensation comparisons that take in factors beside salary make any sense without detailed knowledge of the complete compensation offered elsewhere and without a fairly precise agreement on what counts as “compensation.” I say stick with salary. Salary is countable and comparable. Even counting pension as compensation is much more difficult–especially for Oregonians, given all the ramifications. (Even tier one can be split between those who retire with money match and those who cannot.)
But beyond this, try to factor in ALL the different ways faculties might be given research support and all all the ways many of us have had to pay for travel and other expenses out of our pockets–and then calculate that loss over time somehow. Or factor in ALL the activities/duties that might qualify for extra compensation and determine how available they are to different faculties and average that out. Or count all the benefits you can IMAGINE–many of them with estimable value and many without.
Once you go beyond salary, things become very messy. This is not even to mention past inequities that were sustained over long periods of time and greatly influence one’s lifetime earnings. I believe salary is the right and fairest focus. Every other kind of counting is just counting for one’s advantage.
Ignoring benefits, no matter how complicated it may be to compare them, is a ridiculous proposition. If you were comparing two job offers, would you just compare salary?
Anon above, in the case of job offers I would have fuller information. With your false comparison on scale, we do not have data on benefits that warrant inclusion in national comparisons – your point what never make it through a peer review process, but PR for Admin need not be accountable to claims.
‘Total compensation’ has been used here for awhile to justify low salaries (along with the beautiful trees), but beyond Tier 1 it’s a good approximation to assume we’re within a few percent of other places on benefits, and therefore just look at salaries. Tier 1 folks should remember that they make 10% more than others around here (and others should remember that too, when considering equity). Maybe Tier1’s should take that into account by adding a little bump when comparing salaries around the country. On the other hand, ‘back in the day’ generous retirement policies were in play too at other public universities, so I bet that all in all it’s close to a wash, and salaries are an adequate comparison.
No. Tier 1 faculty do not “make 10% more than others”. Tier 1 faculty *cost* UO about 10% more than new hires do.
Some of that 10% goes to pay the unfunded liabilities of current retirees, who are getting a far better deal than the current Tier 1 faculty are going to get when they retire.
The one place where this comparison makes sense is Tier 1 hires who went into the ORP and not PERS, versus new hires in the ORP. Those “Tier 1 ORP” faculty, do indeed get ~10% more of their salary into a defined contribution plan, and it makes sense to call that both a cost and a benefit.
I don’t know how many people that is, but Oregon is hardly the only school that offers new hires a cheaper and less valuable pension than hires got back in the 80’s and 90’s. So the comparisons of full professor salary at UO versus other AAU publics are probably still a pretty good measure of the relative differences in overall compensation.
Dog says
and its really “Weighted Total Compensation” that matters. My only problem
with Uncle Bernies formalism is that is just a linear, equally weighted, combination of some (assumed compared to peers) rates. I believe that one’s direct salary weights more than indirect contributions and that the real figure of merit is, say, over the last 10 years,
how does our baseline salary increases, as a function of rank, compare with our “peers”?
It may be difficult to count benefits, but it’s not completely impossible, and besides, it’s necessary.
Believe me, if the University suddenly ended the 6% pickup, or made us pay half our medical insurance out of pocket, we would all learn very quickly that it’s more than salary that counts in “compensation.”
Tier 2 and Tier 3 shouldn’t count pensions? Well, that’s a 5% bump in compensation, as they’d find out if the pickup was dropped.
I still figure in making comparisons, Tier 1 is worth about 10%, Tier 3 is 5%, Tier 2 probably close to 5%. (If anyone has found fault in my way of reckoning, please explain, preferably with an explanation of how you would do the calculation.)
And yes, Tier 1 people should go a little lighter in complaining about their lower relative salaries, because their pension benefits are significantly higher than others — again, by about 5%.
Generally a good discussion here.
And finally, no I don’t work for the administraton, or the union either for that matter.
To Dog:
In the last year salary relative to peers has fallen by 3%, 2%, and 4%, for fulls, associates, and assistants respectively. Call it 3% on average.
The admin proposal is for 1.5% OTB raises and 2% merit, retroactive for 6 months of last year. Call that (2/3)*3.5%, or ~2.2%.
So, not enough to even keep us even with salary growth at our peers, much less get this elevator going in the right direction.
And to HUB, when it comes to benefits, you are still confusing their costs to UO with their value to the faculty.
UOMatters — as I’ve avowed more than once, and see below — I make my own estimates of what the benefits are worth — don’t go by the UO statements of cost — if it must be insisted that someone is confused, it’s you, sorry.
But, hey, you’re an economist, so it can be forgiven!
Actually the retroactive part is just 1.5 percent for last year. And only until last January. So the admins are only proposing closing half of the widening in the gap in base salaries, while only half of cumulative increase in the gap which happened over the last year.
Dog to UOmatters
indeed, to me this is the essential point:
a) our current salary has fallen on average
b) over the last 10 years I suspect our % increases in average salary
vs rank have been lower than our peers, but I don’t know this for sure – I do know that the May 2011 raises were largely based on reversing that trend but
we have gotten new raises since then, so the trend continues – hence the current state.
c) on the issue of Tier 1 – this will depend entirely on how long I live
after retirement – if I make it to 85 (don’t want to) then working at the UO
will have proved to be relatively “lucrative” – if I kick tomorrow, it wont’ have been …
Thanks for ruining my day Awesome, the numbers are now corrected in the post. That imaginary merit raise was nice while it lasted though.
UOMatters — please note that Anonymous said that Tier 1 people “make 10% more” — I didn’t say that.
What I said (implicitly, but it is very simple), using my own reckoning of what the pension benefits are actually worth — not administration calculations of cost per worker — is that Tier 1 “makes” a 5% premium over the other tiers. i.e. the pickup is a 5% premium for everyone, Tier 1 is 5% more.
One of the posters (in ORP) generally agreed with this, and someone then pointed out that PERS Tier 1 does still have certain advantages over ORP, so it’s hard to say which is better.
Calling the ‘pickup’ a ‘premium’ seems non-useful. Most universities provide an ORP-like benefit – it’s a standard component of an academics benefit package. So everybody has this premium. It’s not some newly found special treasure in our compensation that makes up for low salaries.
Here’s the AAU survey showing on average 10% contribution for ‘retirement’ regardless of dispersal method:
http://www.aaup.org/sites/default/files/files/2013%20Salary%20Survey%20Tables%20and%20Figures/Table%2010A.pdf
So our Tier 3 6% is low, but Tier 1 is higher, and our retirement average is average, but our salaries are low.
“Calling the ‘pickup’ a ‘premium’ seems non-useful”
This makes no sense — it’s like saying a 6% salary boost is “non-useful.”
The pension benefit for Tier 3 is actually 14%, 12% if you’re in the optional side of Tier 3. For Tier 1 ORP it’s about 22%. So pension benefits are far higher, on average, at Oregon than 10%.
And that 10% is cost to the institution of the retirement program — at UO, near as I’ve been able to find out, it’s 22% per faculty member — some of that goes to pay retired Tier 1 people, true — but other states have the same problem, you know.
Anyway I try to cut it, pension benefits and/or costs are far higher at Oregon.
Mr. Bernie, you may not work for the Admin, but your points (that we are at 95-97% of our AAU peers, really!?) seem to come straight from the talking points of the Admin’s million-dollar+ bargaining team (and PR firm). Regardless of the motivations for your arguments, UO faculty SALARIES are moving in the wrong direction, down relative to our AAU peers. Using smoke and mirrors in an attempt to distort what the data says will do nothing to sway the objective experience and concerns of over 1000 faculty members in our union. If the Administration is at all concerned about steering this ship on course, and preventing a wave of compounding frustrations materializing into direct action in the 6 weeks ahead, I hope they give up the smoke and mirrors and get real with faculty. Trying to make a case for further under-investment (as UOM shows how the Admins current proposal will do) in the faculty, who are the engines of excellence here, will only compound frustrations and add to our resolve. Since it does not seem to be with the data, to whom do your allegiances rest Mr. Bernie?
Bernie brought up a legitimate viewpoint and put his analysis out there for all to see. What a fresh approach! You, on the other hand, come out slinging mud and without substance which just reflects poorly on the union to this observer.
What mud? As many comments above note, Bernie’s method for raising UO’s percent ranking (by adding points from speculation about the value of benefits, without doing the same for the ENTIRE AAU system) is flawed – it produces apples and oranges. I am rejecting that flawed argument and questioning the motives behind it – and noting the interesting coincidence of his persistence and the Administration’s claim that there is no salary problem at UO. Why is challenging that a problem for you Anon?
Dog says
Indeed, the service done by Uncle Bernie and the ensuing supportive and objectionable comments are simply mirroring the fact that this “equity compensation” issue is neither trivial or objective.
However, the one thing that most faculty do notice is a pay increase.
And that pay increase, no matter how large or small, is more than overdue.
Questioning Bernie’s motives is pointless and simply distracts from the real issues at hand. Thanks to Bernie’s initiative, we now have a link to some standard ways to compare benefits.
Agreed — I’m glad Bernie has posted! These are tangled issues to parse. Personally, I think that one should focus on the *trend* relative to AAU peers, which is clearly negative. It’s galling that the trend of higher-administration salaries relative to AAU peers is certainly not negative. I’d like to hear the admin. defend this.
The real inequity here is not between U of O compensation and the rest of AAU, but rather between Tier 3 and Tier 1/2 faculty right here at U of O. The employer compensation of Tier 1/2 (as of July) is 20.90%, whereas Tier 3 is 6.42%.
(See Page 8 of
http://www.ous.edu/sites/default/files/dept/hr/benefits/files/01_DecisionMakingGuide.pdf
)
Whereas 20.90 far exceeds the contribution at any institution of which I know, 6.42 is at best “OK”. I understand there are complicated reasons for this situation, but the numbers speak for themselves. I am disappointed that our union bargainers have not even mentioned (to my knowledge, please correct me if I am wrong) this situation in their negotiations. As is often in life, the extent to which folks around campus care about this issue is colored almost entirely by which tier they happen to fall into.
Check out http://www.oregon.gov/pers/docs/financial_reports/2011_pension_summary_ual.pdf
The unfunded liability of PERS 1/2 is ~7B. (We’re in the State pool, at the top). My understanding is that about 40% of PERS 1/2 current contributions got to build this up towards the goal of full funding. Some portion of that unfunded liability (I don’t know how much) is for current retirees, not current Tier 1/2 faculty.
So while PERS 1/2 people in the ORP get to put their money in a defined contribution account like TIAA-CREF, for those in the PERS system a chunk of their payments are not a benefit to them, but to others.
I’m not saying the full profs aren’t getting a good deal relative to the new hires, just that on average it’s not as good as it looks.
David, I share concern about your observation. Your colleague Marcin has been a great advocate for this issue. The union bargaining team and organizing committee worked hard on this (as volunteers). We sent faculty volunteers (myself included) to lobby in Salem as cuts were proposed to all tiers, and to those tier 2 and 3 faculty signed up with ORP (while we also lobbied for a seat on the independent board, a vote on the board, and more, while arguing against UO Foundation lobbyists). We sent emails to our members asking them to join us and email legislators. We made headway at the legislature and, with help from supportive legislators, prevented a bad situation from getting worse. This issue will no doubt require future action, both at the state level and at the bargaining table. I hope you can be counted on to support future solutions, as I think Marcin has developed some clarity on the problem and perhaps some avenues to solve it. As for the faculty volunteering at the bargaining table, they have been met with resistance on every economic proposal we have advanced. I hope you can understand how tough it has been to make difficult decisions when all we get in response is, verbatim, “there are no problems” or “we (the UO) don’t have any more money” or “this is all you will get.” It is one thing to know the problem and another to develop and advance doable solutions. This particular problem will require action in the legislature AND at the UO. The stronger we are as a union, the more likely we will tackle it.
I want to second UO Matters on the issue of PERS benefits being costly. It is increasingly clear that, if the state has its way,future PERS Tier 1 retirees will not receive anywhere near the benefits originally promised.
Every year more Tier 1/2 faculty retire, and UO hires replacements with , as Levin and Marcin have noted, far lower pension costs (and far lower value to the new faculty). Last year this turnover for TTF’s was about 10%. I expect it’s even higher for the NTTF’s.
So over the 2 years of this contract UO will see a substantial drop in pension costs, and the average faculty will be receiving a substantially less valuable pension benefit.
So this is an argument for increasing UO’s wages relative to the other AAU’s, not for holding to the status quo!
That said the comments about the cost of UO benefits being unequally distributed across ranks and according to whether someone stayed with PERS or switched into the ORP are valid ones. Fixing this would require case by case examination, some very speculative assumptions about financial and political risks, and some normative judgements about whether it’s right to punish someone in salary for making the right decision about the ORP back in 1995. Particularly hard given that we don’t yet know what was the right decision.
David — you mention the employer contribution — but don’t forget that UO also “picks up” the employee contribution of 6.0%.
You may think that the higher Tier 1 retirement benefits are unfair — but then look at the salary compression of full profs (who are mostly Tier 1) relative to more junior people — the higher retirement benefits largely (not entirely) compensate for the lower salaries.
Also, consider that dividing Tier 1 and Tier 2,3 faculty — who are each about half of the faculty — would be exactly what a bargaining adversary would want to do.
UO Matters — my understanding — is that an assessment is made for each faculty member — including the Tier 2 and 3 faculty — to shore up the PERS trust fund. The Tier 1 people are getting the full benefit of the high assessment for them — the Tier 2, 3 people are basically being assessed to pay for the already retireds — Tier 1 is a very good deal for all active Tier 1 faculty, whether in PERS or ORP.
David Levin — you mention 20.90 employer rate from the OUS source — I believe that was the projected rate for 2013-15 — the rate for the previous biennium was more like 16% and the rate has averaged about 14% for the past 10 years.
BUT — of most relevance — due to the PERS “reforms” or “cuts” or whatever you want to call them, from the recent legislative session — the employer rate for the 2013-15 biennium is now just over 16% — it has NOT gone up to 20.90%.
And be sure to add in the 6% “pickup” to get total pension contribution — for all tiers.
NWTK – Thank you for pointing out the state revised its contribution rates. The inequity stands.
As to your point about compression:
Imagine two professors, Prof A and B. Prof A was hired in 2002, Prof B in 2003. (I believe the division of tiers occurred at this time. If it was another year, substitute that year.) They have received identical performance reviews, have identical teaching records, identical research portfolios. Their salaries are identical. However, Prof A gets a 16% (plus 6) contribution, Prof B gets 6% (plus 6). They are receiving unequal compensation for equal work. This is an apples-to-apples comparison. Comparing our compensation to other AAU institutions requires factoring in a host of variables: these institutions are not all the same, and compensation probably should be different. I’m not saying comparisons can’t or shouldn’t be made, but they require more nuance.
My point about compression mainly had to do with the Tier 1 people, not the division between Tier 2 and Tier 3 (which took place at the time you discuss in your example.)
Sure, there are going to be inequities in any system where the employer (the state of Oregon) changes the rules, as it did when it established Tier 2 and then Tier 3.
What do you suggest doing about it? Make everyone Tier 3? Then you will be attempting to break contracts, good luck with that in court (and good luck dealing with the angry Tier 1 and Tier 2 people, even if you win in court, which is unlikely).
Perhaps salaries could be adjusted to reflect differences in the value of benefits. Would that be legal? Could you get the various unions to agree to do this? I wouldn’t hold my breath. It might have been more feasible to do it on a case by case informal basis, I don’t know.
There’s no perfect system, especially, as I say, working in a state system which is unstable.
I would advise getting over any resentment about the Tier 1 people. In the first place, they are generally getting a lower salary, comparatively, than you. Second, they came on board at a time when the salaries were far worse, again comparatively, than they were when you joined. Third, as has been said, abetting “divide and conquer” among the faculty is a losing plan.
I’m repeating this link on benefits from the 2013 AAU salary survey. It seems helpful for the discussion. Average 10% employer retirement contribution.
Benefits:
http://www.aaup.org/sites/default/files/files/2013%20Salary%20Survey%20Tables%20and%20Figures/Table%2010A.pdf
Salaries:
http://www.aaup.org/sites/default/files/files/aaup-survey-table-04a.pdf
It lists pension costs per faculty member in dollars.
It would be interesting to know pension costs per faculty member at UO, either % or $$.
Does UO pay the same amount (%) per faculty member, or does it vary with the value of the benefit i.e. different rates for Tier 1,2,3 etc.?
The list for other institutions includes pension contributions in both dollars and percent.
UO pays in (6+X)% for the different Tiers, where X=6% for Tier 1 and more for the others (see above postings).
Oh, I don’t think it’s X = 6% for Tier 1, it’s far higher than that, see the post below about the UO excel spreadsheet with all the numbers.
I know this is off topic, but given the clip of Gleason in Agate Hall – can I take a moment to use my very first swear word:
Fuck the journalism school for booting the community from using Agate Hall as a social dance venue.
(You Gotta) Fight For Your Right (To Party)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eBShN8qT4lk
I have lost control of this thread. You are on your own. Live long and prosper.
I tried the cost of living comparer that “Bernie” linked to — it’s very good, try it!
http://www.bestplaces.net/cost-of-living/eugene-or/charlottesville-va/50000
For the most part, Eugene cost of living is lower than our “comparators” certainly substantially lower than the average of the 8 comparators.
Thanks Uncle Bernie it makes Eugene and UO look like a better deal than I realized.
Seattle has very high housing prices, in part because it’s a great places to live. Housing costs are in part a measure of the value of the amenities in an area: schools, environment, recreation opportunities, culture, opportunities for spousal employment, and so on.
The fact that Eugene’s housing prices are not as high as some of our comparators is nice, if you only care about your housing costs.
But it’s not a good signal about the overall desirability of living in the area. You could make an argument that UO should have to pay *higher* salaries to attract the best faculty, in comparison to places like UW.
I can’t resist this:
So some people argue that UO faculty should get paid more to make up for the high cost of living here.
But when it turns out — as it seems to — that it’s low, you try to argue that UO faculty should get paid more to make up for the low cost of living!
I wish you the best arguing that with the administration, the legislature, or just about anyone else. Try telling your class that their tuition went up to compensate you for the low cost of living in Eugene. Good luck!
Just to make it clear, though I think I already have. I’m not connected in any way with UO administration. Nor with the union, nor for that matter with the UO Senate.
I simply have tried to take an objective look at UO salaries, overall compensation, cost of living, etc. and tried to come up with a good ballpark figure of how UO faculty stand. And the conclusion I come to is things are pretty decent here. It wasn’t always that way.
It’s telling that nobody has seriously tried to come up with better estimate/guesstimate for the various faculty ranks than mine.
As for the ongoing negotiations, I hope the ground that has been lost in the last year will be made up, more or less. Beyond that, I don’t have a dog in this (other than my own salary, lol).
Thanks for the numbers based conversation. The only thing I haven’t seen thus far and I’m to lazy to do is a statistical test to see if the differences are significant between UO and it’s “peers” and/or UO and those ranked near it. Obviously, you can probably skew the results one way or the other by using averages or all the item level data (not sure if that’s available). It would be interesting to see though. Based on Bernie’s numbers I’m not so sure they are that different as a whole. That’s not to say it doesn’t stink with the raise situation…..
You don’t need a statistical test to determine if the difference is significant. Don’t misuse statistics.
Wow, no wonders we are going to get kicked out of the AAU.
Seriously. I hope that commenter isn’t on our science faculty!
Somebody asked above about pension costs and benefits for various classes of faculty. I have a long-standing, if perhaps unwise interest in these things, but have never been exactly sure of the answers.
A kind and helpful member of the administrative staff whom I will leave unnamed provided me with this link:
http://brp.uoregon.edu/budget-managers
Go to the link, click on “personnel OPE tools” then click on “OPE retirement rates and history”
and you’ll find as much as I’ve ever seen on this.
Enjoy!
While I’m at it — I was a member, long time ago, of the senate budget committee that put together the “White Paper” on faculty salaries of 2000.
A link to that document can still be found here:
http://pages.uoregon.edu/uosenate/dirsen990/SBCfinal.html
and therein under “References” you can find this link with certain data
http://darkwing.uoregon.edu/~uosenate/dirsen990/dirextra/SBCWhite.html
The first item is total compensation for the various ranks for 1998-99. The data from that document are
79.5% 83.7% 87.1% 85.2% 82.1%
full assoc asst inst all
We looked at both salaries and total comp, but focused more on the latter as the best measure of how we were doing, recognizing that benefits are real, or should be; and that they have a monetary cost and benefit just as salary does. At that time, as I recall, the main compensation perk at UO was the 6.0% pickup of employee contributions. Other than that, the retirement program here seemed pretty typical. Even though almost everyone was Tier 1 back then, PERS hadn’t gotten out of hand as it has today; total pension contributions including pickup were about 15% as close as I can remember, about the same as when I moved to UO in 1990.
Salary %’s were lower than the total comp numbers above, because of the 6% pickup and also, again as far as I can remember, because Oregon medical benefits were above average back then. I can’t remember how much lower salaries were than total comp, I think it was probably between 5 and 10 per cent, but that is stretching my memory, and I don’t have the documents handy that would give the precise number (for each faculty rank).
In any case, the total comp numbers, to say nothing of the salary numbers, were hugely deficient back 15 years ago, as you can see in the little table above from the weblink.
I suggest that this bit of history be taken into account in forming a picture of where we have been, where we are, and where we might be going.
By the way, I’ve heard second hand that the data-based and collaborative “White Paper” was very helpful to Lariviere in making the decision to augment the full professor salaries back in 2011 before he left.
Thanks to HUB and MK and others for their fact based contributions to this post. I’m going to try and put it together with some other info I’ve got, and put up some numbers on the cost versus value comparisons. Might take a day or two.
Meanwhile, any other relevant data sources would be very much appreciated.