Just kidding, I don’t know why our provost didn’t give United Academics any credit for these raises in this email, sent round today. One of the more unexpected aspects of both this and the 2014 bargaining was that it was the *union* that kept pushing for merit increases, while the administration wanted across the board. The union won. For the record, here’s my final post on the 2015 negotiations: Bargaining XIX: 12:55 AM Friday, and we’ve got a deal. 8% + $650 + a look at equity.
Today’s email:
Dear William,
I am pleased to share important information about compensation. Faculty salary increases this year are effective January 1, 2017.
The 2017 salary increases for eligible faculty will include both a 0.75 percent across-the-board increase as well as a 2.25 percent available merit pool. Additional details about the salary increase process are available on the HR website: FY17 salary increase overview.
Last year, the university transitioned its annual faculty salary increase cycle from the beginning of each fiscal year (July) to the beginning of each calendar year (January). With this change, faculty received their last salary increase in January of 2016. Based on the new cycle, the next opportunity for a salary increase is the start of the next calendar year, which is January 2017. We expect that the January 1 increase cycle will continue in future years.
Please contact Human Resources with questions by email at [email protected] or call (541) 346-3159.
Sincerely, Scott Coltrane
Provost and Senior Vice President
readers should read this May 2016 report
http://uauoregon.org/category/faculty-salaries/
The data linked above seems to imply that UO gave its big raises in 2014, and then everyone else gave big raises in 2015. So the net result is that we are where we’ve always been. Given this, why does the union constantly claim credit for getting us those big raises? Our comparators are mostly not unionized, and they got those raises too (albeit a year later). To me the data suggests that the raises are a consequence of the national economic recovery, and have little to do with the union or anything else. What am I missing?
Also, I recently received an email from someone very much involved with the senate and the union that said that if Measure 97 doesn’t pass then the university looks to be in serious financial trouble. Given this, why do I hear complaints and blaming from the union that the administration was only willing to give very meager raises after 2014. Where is the money supposed to come from? I find the whole thing very confusing.
the data do not imply that – they directly show that – yes whatever momentum was gained and manifest in 2014
has mostly been lost