38 Responses to salary data

  1. thedude says:

    Is this our mission accomplished moment? Or how much does vary across departments? How much of the continued external equity problems could be solved by allowing deans great promotional raise flexibility?

    • Dog says:

      “external equity problems could be solved by allowing deans great promotional raise flexibility”

      this is the exact strategy used by CAS deans for the May 2011 raises based only on external equity. The raise was Phase 1 of 3
      2 and 3 never happened because of unionization.

  2. thedude says:

    It would be great to compare these over time and the different presidential regimes. My sense is the Gottfriedsen regime did a lot more with it’s very generous raises in 2013-2014 to close outside gaps than the Schill regime where raises have fallen to an avg of 2.0 percent per year.

    Now do the same figure for NTTFs (which is harder to compare). Bottom line, they’ve had similar if not larger percentage increases (given binding floors and some fixed $ payments in the union contracts) and large gains in job stability. Then it’s obvious they get large economic benefits (pay+security) then the TTF (which only get identical pay) out of each contract we’ve signed.

    • Dog says:

      no Gott had nothing to do with the 2013-2014 large. “make up” raises and he can’t even articulate a sentence to claim that he did.

      This was entirely the result of the formation of the Union and sizeables gains were made in this initial round of negotiations.

      Subsequently, the union was able to sell itself as real value to the faculty and many argued that without the union such gains would have never been made:

      a) everyone should consult their May 2011 raise and this was phase I of the CAS plan to make significant adjustments; that plan was interrupted by union formation

      b) yes the initial union negotiations that culminated in the July 2014 significant raises (having included 2013 as well) was clearly an initial victory but that did not set the trend; post the 2014 events, in general, average faculty raises are slightly less than than west coast inflation

      c) October pay checks are often good to measure annual raises by.

      Compare your Oct paycheck in 2010 to that in 2012 to that in 2014. Now extrapolate that line out to October 2019 and compare that to you actual October 2019 paycheck. This data reality is something, it seems to me, that most are unaware of.

      • thedude says:

        If you remember the first offer from Gott wasn’t bad. It started at

        1.5 retroactive and then 3.5 the next year.

        Recently the admin’s starting offer is 0. Say what you want, but there are orders from the top (Pres and Provost) right now to hardball. The last two cycles of bargaining, they starting offer 0. Or 0.5 percent a year. If only Schill had a vision that to be an elite research university we needed to pay like one.

        • Dog says:

          again, if you in CAS, Gott had nothing to do with it and much of that was lag time associated with initiative of Lariviere, as previously pointed out by Old Gray Mare, that no one seemed to
          pay attention. It was the Lariviere initiative that we in fact get raises when the state said now that lead to what you think Gott did for all of us.

          Whatever, revisionist history is what this blog is all about most of the time. Hell, I might have even made up all of this shit just now …

  3. ScienceDuck says:

    Before union:
    Full: 24% gain
    Assoc: 29% gain
    Asst: 23% gain

    Mostly after union:
    Full: 20% gain
    Assoc: 24% gain
    Asst: 18% gain

    As I pointed out previously, these gains lag AAU average gains as well (I did that for CAS ranks’ salaries). Maybe the benefits are going to the NTTF disproportionately (I am modestly in favor of this)?

    2006 instructor 42,200
    2012 instructor 68600 63% gain before union
    2018 instructor 87700 28% gain after union
    Instructors do have a larger gain post-union compared to any of the TTF, but a worse comparison to pre-tenure (this stat could be easily messed up by shifting representation in that group, I just don’t know).

    I would have thought the 2008 crash would have made raises even harder to come by than the 2012-18 period, but maybe PERS and reduced state allocations plus increased admin costs have squeezed the budget more now. Maybe the union has focused on “soft” benefits over cash, as the “free parking, free childcare” pitch in the current round would suggest. It would be good to understand why the salary raises have been sub-par compared to both pre-union raises and AAU comparator raises.

    Add on: https://www.oregon.gov/highered/research/Pages/funding-data.aspx suggests state allocation per FTE went down in the “pre-union” period and went up during the union period, so that is not a good explanation.

    • ScienceDuck says:

      Sorry, “Instructors do have a larger gain post-union compared to any of the TTF, but a worse comparison to pre-tenure ” should be “pre-union”.

    • thedude says:

      THere were politics around raises, but we were temporarily resource rich after the 2008 crash up through 2013 (when we unionized). Tuition increased, enrollment soared and Bean didn’t hire enough faculty or build enough class rooms. Of course you either spend it on raises, or admins. The hat got fired trying to spend it on raises, we hired some faculty and hired a ton of admins, and played catch up. Unionized, wasted some money etc.

      So our salary gains gains come from increasing the pie, or bargaining power. Has the union done the latter? Maybe. We’ve definitely been out bargained the last time and perhaps this round to. It was easy going up against these tobacco lawyers.

      I’m not in favor of the the gains accruing just to the NTTFs. I’m for ending subsidies to professional schools for sure.

    • heraclitus says:

      I’m honestly gobsmacked by the figure for CAS instructors (yes, I see it is in the summary). Are there really *any* student-facing CAS instructors making 87700? Esp. at an average of 5 years service? If so, where do I apply?

      • ScienceDuck says:

        I looked a bit and there are instructors in the Business school making 100-150k, and a few in the sciences makes over 100k, but it doesn’t seem enough to drive the average to 87700.

        I looked again…the “5” is not the average years service, it is the total FTE at that rank. They for some reason cherry-picked 5 instructors total for CAS and 0 for all other schools within UO.

        • heraclitus says:

          Thanks for following up ScienceDuck. Business School salaries, of course, aren’t CAS salaries (nice work if you can get it, though). Are there, perhaps, some well-paid admin types moonlighting as NTTF and driving up the stats?

          • Dog says:

            yes professional school salaries, in general, are not real valid academic salaries as most of the most individuals could enter the commercial/professional world at higher salaries than their
            academic ones. Its like including the salaries of Medical Doctors and various medical schools in the calculation of average faculty salary.

            Since all the data is available one could compile instructor salary data as a function of CAS department. While I am sure this data internally exists, it’s unlikely to be shared here.

  4. Old Gray Mare says:

    What about the Lariviere raises? Where do they figure in?

  5. prof from another AAU school says:

    It is completely bogus to use AAU public universities as your sister (peer) institutions for salary comparisons since UO is not really an “AAU caliber” school…. Regardless of it being a member. I suggest UO find another comparison group.

    • Dog says:

      while I complete agree that the UO is not “AAU Caliber” but I can base that on a few metrics, rather than just a blanket statement appearing on some random blog. So, what are your metrics?

      My Metrics

      1. Percentage of annual degrees that are PHDs (pretty sure UO is at the bottom here)

      2. External funding per faculty capita (pretty low)

      3. Graduate student to undergraduate student ratio – quite low

      1,2,3 basically show that you is a poor research university compared to AAU peers

      I am sure other metrics are available.

      • prof from another AAU school says:

        While not associated with UO, I know several great faculty there, and have a long standing interest in Oregon higher education. One of my graduate students came from UO.
        How about using the report provost Coltrane commissioned comparing UO to other AAU publics? I think it was designed to influence your legislature to provide more $, by showing that such a’ high quality U’ was not being funded ‘properly’.. Dont see that it worked. More likely it showed that UO was not AAU caliber.
        Or just count members of the NAS. ( We can ignore members of NAE and NAM since you dont have medicine or engineering.).
        There is something odd in the choice of peers for salary comparison ; schools often have aspirational peers [ aka… we ought to be like them, peers]. If such salary comparisons are designed as indicator variables to whether your individual faculty are under paid then compare faculty of similar accomplishment and duties. You dont do that by claiming UO faculty are as accomplished as other AAU faculty. Some are, some are not.

    • just another OA says:

      Read: many UO faculty are not “AAU caliber”

      • Dog says:

        not sure if its the faculty itself or the institution that does not do a good job to enable faculty of become “AAU Caliber”

        • Dog says:

          I should add that my entire academic career (mostly by luck) has been experienced at nothing but AAU institutions, on both the East Coast and West coast and one in the middle – in terms of research infrastructure the UO comes up way, way, short compared to any other institution I have been it. This is what I mean by the failure to enable faculty …

        • prof from another school says:

          Hi Dog; Its both, and faculty at R1, non-AAU schools often complain that their school does not support the kind of development that AAU measures in deciding AAU Caliber. AAU is quite straight foreword in what they value and measure. What does UO value, really? Not the PR, but how the allocation decisions get made. I suspect that many at UO simply would not accept the AAU criteria.
          My point was much narrower: find a comparison , peer, group of schools that reflect what UO is really about , and use that group to see if your salaries are above or below expected. I simply doubt AAU publics are the appropriate group.
          I spent most of my 47 yr faculty career( including emeritus) at non-AAU RI schools, and strongly believe that schools, both the faculty and admin, create the cultures that either foster real excellence [ that WORD, oh my] or not; probably at the department level, but deans were the major road bloc in my experience.

          • Dog says:

            yes I agree that deans are anything but innovative – they are merely care takers of inertia. The UO peer group has been whacked for some time (Virginia, Washington, Michigan, etc) but Colorado
            is relevant peer (which we do include) and so is the University of Delaware (which we do not include). But lately our real peers are places like Mississippi State

            The UO values its quirkiness and basic secret mathematical formula that constantly transforms mediocrity to excellence.

            • prof from another AAU school says:

              Hi Dog; Your academic experience and judgement are way beyond my ‘pay grade’, and I much appreciate your frank input about UO in this public space . I never accepted any admin job, and rarely served on any committee outside my home department. never served in ‘the senate’. I just kept my head down, taught my classes , and ran my lab. I had little interest in the workings of the university beyond its support for my research and the support of my immediate colleagues. But i did write a lot of influential science and received several awards AAU ( actually, NRC) labels ‘ highly prestigious’ , and several members of the research groups I founded or worked-with- closely were elected to NAS or AAA&S[ or foreign equivalent], including 4 of my former grad studnts /postdocs. . There is no secret math formula; i looked for it too!

              • Dog says:

                thanks, glad that someone appreciates my “judgement” based on experience and data. Locally those “judgement” skill have translated to the perception that I am a self-absorbed malcontent boat-rocker, rather than an interdisciplinary scholar.

                I do believe that disruption is really the only way to generate institutional change – going into all of this (many decades ago now) I really did believe that a University was an institution with an open mind and an appreciation of the need for institutional change. Young and naive, for sure …

            • ScienceDuck says:

              I agree UO could have a better thought out peer group, but I have to wonder at your “real peers”. Take MSU–I don’t see any National Academy of Sciences members currently there, nor at Delaware, while in the sciences here departments can have multiple members. Our lack of engineering/medical has a huge impact on total grant dollars but I’d say that it is just harder to figure out how to rank UO than most schools.

              I also agree with prof from another AAU school that those peers aren’t the best for determining a fair wage, but it is useful to see how % raises track with those schools regardless of the actual salary.

              • prof from another AAU school says:

                oops, sorry science duck, thought you were referring to MSU, aka Michigan. Now I realize you meant Mississippi state U.
                My point was that NAS membership predicts AAU membership pretty well. The exception is ASU ( arizona) , not a member. All the recent additions to AAU are loaded with NAS members [ eg, Utah].Its odd that UBC is not a member.

      • ScienceDuck says:

        Probably many faculty at other AAU schools are also not of “AAU caliber”, though!

        • Townie says:

          Maybe the top tier schools should leave and form their own group? This would probably lead to better coordination amongst the top 10-25 schools than the bloated 60+ member AAU currently allows.

          What UO is chasing after is probably both unattainable in the long run and counter productive in the short run. The dream of being a bonafide AAU member is understandably not a priority of the Oregon legislature. Additionally, higher salaries post-COVID will not be popular with the electorate if state finances continue to take a massive hit. Furthermore, there may very well be an even greater gulf between the top 10 schools and the bottom 30 post-COVID. The weaker institutions should form their own organization that better serves their agenda.

  6. Ua member says:

    The data basically confirm what I said before: no salary benefit for the TTFs to pay to the union. Both the aggregate numbers, and my own experience at best put pre/after unuon benefits as a wash. They have had several years to prove their value, and they failed. The current throwing of TTFs under the bus is the last straw. No more money from me – thank you SCOTUS.
    But I am happy for my highly respected and terrific NTTF colleagues who got themselves a great union that is fighting for them by squeezing TTFs. The point is that is is now THEIR union, not mine.

    • Bee says:

      I do not see anyone being thrown under the bus. I see a thoughtful solution to a major problem that impacts people unevenly. Salary cuts for faculty are happening across the country, in most cases without their input or consultation. If you do not value saving the jobs of NTTF colleagues via a progressively shared burden – and only see a point in protecting your salary – you probably already lack the kind of care for others that is at the heart of a union. It is too bad you would facilitate division rather than amplify solidarity. The cult of selfishness is toxic to our world.

  7. uomatters says:

    One union objective is to make the administrators who will be responsible for activating this doomsday machine pay enough of the price themselves to ensure they think carefully.
    Schill and Phillips both make far more than $200K, and a 20% cut will leave them making much more than they made in their previous jobs.

  8. Bee says:

    These periods are quite different. In the first period, revenues from tuition and state appropriations grew more than in the second period. Also, the gap between UO and AAU mean was much greater and desperation to close that gap was more widely seen as needed. In the second period, the administration deemed the gap closed and fought closing it further every step of the way. To blame this on unionization is to ignore the actions of the administration and frankly many members of the faculty who were unwilling or uninterested in making waves. Those gains that happened in 2012-19 would most certainly not have been as large without a union. By the way, the second round of LaRiviere raises was killed not because of unionization, but because of pushback from others at the state level. The first equity raise in the UA contract was .5% of TTF salaries and largely implemented the Tomlin approach that was used for the first round.

    • Anonymous says:

      as said many time on this blog elsewhere

      the gains from 2012-2014 are relatively large
      the gains since 2014 are less than west coast inflation

      It is now in the domain of revisionist history what happened beyond phase 1 of the external equity raises initiated by CAS

      and by the way, if you were a newly hired assistant professor at the UO during this time then you would have not gotten much a raise since your starting salary was mostly based on external equity conditions.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.