Bargaining session XVII: Administration still lowballing faculty

Sorry, I’m teaching summer camp so no UO M live-blog. The faculty union is live-blogging on Facebook, though. Their info on the administration’s counter-offer from today:

Admin proposal:

FY16: 1% ATB.

FY17: 2.5% Merit (with dean’s withholding 20%).

FY18: 3% Merit (again 20% withheld) 

That’s 6.5% spread out over 3.5 years. (Plus about 1% per year for promotion raises.) Last year raises at our comparators were 3.4%, and it looks like they will be about that again this year. Our administration is offering 1% (plus promotions). I’m no macroeconomist, but I hear that the Federal Reserve Bank’s Open Market Committee has an inflation target of 2%.

The union proposal is for 10% raises over 3.5 years (plus promotions) split between ATB, merit, and equity. The two sides are a long ways apart and there are no more sessions scheduled until August 12.

Meanwhile the administration’s PR flacks still haven’t retracted their claim that UO faculty compensation is now *above* the Senate White Paper target. Come on. And while the administration’s own data shows the serious external equity issues for fulls, the administration’s proposal includes zip for equity. And don’t get me started on the unicorn.

So it seems likely we will still be bargaining when classes start September 28th. Will the faculty strike? Not in September. As you may recall from the GTFF strike there’s a long period of impasse, arbitration, votes, and so on before a full-blown strike can be called.

Some quick googling shows this for 2015-16 raises at some AAU publics and some nearby universities:

University of California system: Faculty will get a 3% ATB raise, in addition to the regular step/promotion raises, which are about 2.5%. (https://ap.ucsb.edu/compensation.and.benefits/ucsb.salary.scales/ and http://www.dailycal.org/2014/03/16/uc-academic-employees-receive-3-percent-salary-increase/)

University of Colorado: 3% (http://communique.uccs.edu/?p=18303)

UVA: 2% ATB plus regular promotion raises: http://www.newsplex.com/home/headlines/Virginia-Lawmakers-Approve-Budget-with-State-Pay-Raises-294256111.html

University of Illinois: 3% plus usual promotion raises of $7,000 and $10,000. http://www.ahr.illinois.edu/FY15BudgetGuidelines.pdf

University of Indiana: 2% plus up to 1.5% merit, plus promotion raises: http://president.iu.edu/initiatives/monthly-update/2015/index.shtml

Iowa State: Up to 1% merit plus promotion raises: http://www.inside.iastate.edu/article/2015/05/14/fy16parameters

Ohio State: 2% plus 1% one-time merit pool plus up to 10% for promotionshttp://www.hr.msu.edu/recognition/facacadstaff/payfaculty/acadsalaryadjust.htm

Michigan State: 3.5% merit plus promotionshttp://www.hr.msu.edu/recognition/facacadstaff/payfaculty/acadsalaryadjust.htm

Penn State: 3% merit plus promotions, near as I can tell: http://budget.psu.edu/President/AppropRequest201415/BOT%20-%20Sept%20SAR-%20FINAL.docx

Purdue: ?

Rutgers: 2% plus 10% promotion raises: http://www.rutgersaaup.org/sites/default/files/images/ArticleVIII_0.pdf

SUNY Stony Brook: 2.5% plus promotions

Texas A&M: TBA.

University of Florida: Bargaining now, faculty asking for 6.5% plus promotions: http://www.gainesville.com/article/20150629/articles/150629672?p=1&tc=pg

University of Minnesota: 2% plus promotions: http://www1.umn.edu/ohr/prod/groups/ohr/@pub/@ohr/documents/asset/ohr_asset_497181.pdf

University of Washington: They’ve got a proposal but I don’t know what’s happening with it: http://www.washington.edu/faculty/senate/issues/salary-policy-proposal-faq/

 Non AAU:

Washington State: 4% merit pool for 1/1/2015 raises. http://budget.wsu.edu/documents/Q%20%20A%20MSI%2015-Version%203.pdf?0.7134609038475901

University of Idaho: 3% (Yes, we’re losing out to Idaho.) http://www.uidaho.edu/~/media/Files/administration/Provost/policy/Salary%20and%20Consulting/FY16/FY2016.ashx

Post a comment if you find more, but it looks like 3.4% is ballpark for next year too.

For UO,  the number will be 0%. (Plus promotion raises for those eligible, averaging about 1%). This is because our administration wants to delay raises until January 1, instead of July 1 as in the current contract. This is a bonehead move: by delaying the raises past October, they won’t show up in the AAU and AAUDE data, which in turn feeds into the US News rankings. (Yes, faculty pay goes into the USNews rankings algorithm).

The 2011 Lariviere/Coltrane plan would have increased average UO salaries by rank and discipline to peer averages by 2014. Coltrane abandoned the plan when he became Provost, and the administration has repeatedly rejected the faculty union’s external equity proposals, despite some big deviations between UO pay and what faculty earn at our peers. These deviations are largest for full professors, as over time it becomes more costly for faculty to move, and UO’s monopsony bargaining power starts to bite more. Our AAU peers are typically in larger labor markets, and therefore their salaries are more reflective of “the market rate”, if you’re into that perfect competition thing.

All the 2014-15 data is now posted on UO’s IR page: http://ir.uoregon.edu/sites/ir.uoregon.edu/files/UOwithAAUPublicsbyDept_2014-15.pdf. Unfortunately there are still no good comparator data for NTTF’s, although the AAUP is working on this. As always, check the footnotes. While UO counts one-time faculty excellence awards in pay, it is not clear how many if any of our comparators do. Also, a colleague checked the Econ data and found one full professor was miscoded as associate. This doesn’t affect the full percentages, but it means that the % of AAU salary for UO Econ associates should be 82%, not 92%. Yikes.

Here are a few cherry picked departments, in no particular order:

Screen Shot 2015-07-14 at 10.40.27 AMScreen Shot 2015-07-14 at 10.37.33 AM Screen Shot 2015-07-14 at 10.39.19 AM  Screen Shot 2015-07-14 at 10.38.02 AM  Screen Shot 2015-07-14 at 10.37.08 AM Screen Shot 2015-07-14 at 10.36.56 AM Screen Shot 2015-07-14 at 10.36.34 AM Screen Shot 2015-07-14 at 10.35.59 AM Screen Shot 2015-07-14 at 10.35.07 AM Screen Shot 2015-07-14 at 10.33.32 AM

Tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to Bargaining session XVII: Administration still lowballing faculty

  1. awesome0 says:

    And the dumb thing about July, Jan debates is they don’t affect recurring dollars, which supposedly is what worries Moffitt. Instead they only affect reserve dollars which are already so big we have justify keeping them so (I know there’s a Cascadia quake to worry about, but if that happens, I’d prefer to use that money now, because money won’t be worth a damn for about 4 weeks).

  2. UOGrad says:

    Comparisons would be more relevant and interesting if you included data from Oregon’s flagship university — OSU.

  3. Observer says:

    In at least one department you cited, the average for full professors has been thrown off and made to look artificially high by a couple of spousal-type hires (not specifying the circumstances too exactly) in which the people came in at the same salaries they’d had at other institutions. The faulty who came up through the ranks at the UO have never reached those heights. I’m a full prof in one of those departments, and my salary is $25,000 less than the average cited. Unless something astonishing happens, I doubt I’ll get anywhere near that “average” figure in the rest of my career. Even a 10% raise doesn’t take you far when it’s 10% of peanuts.

  4. awesome0 says:

    I spoke to a member of U Conn union and he said their contracts usually give the deans up 15-20 percent of the merit pools back for them to reallocate. This helps them to address external equity (if it exists) or more often to be used for extra merit raises or retention raises based on the units needs and performance. He says this been really important for retention purposes. They’ve been running a union for what a 100 years. Probably an ok idea.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.