March 20, 2013
TO: Officers of instruction, research and administration
FROM: Provost Jim Bean
SUBJECT: Multi-year salary adjustment program update
I am writing to provide an update regarding the multi-year salary adjustment program announced in my email of March 4, 2013.
The University is moving forward with its plan to give unrepresented Officers of Instruction and unrepresented Officers of Research a 1.5 percent across-the-board salary increase retroactive to January 2013. We are also moving forward with a 1.5 percent across-the-board increase for FY2014 and a 2 percent merit/equity pool for eligible Officers of Administration and unrepresented Officers of Instruction and unrepresented Officers of Research. The FY 2014 increases will take effect July 1.
The University made the same offer to United Academics. It has not been accepted at this time. The same increases will remain available to United Academics while we negotiate economic issues with the union.
3/20/2013: I took the Chronicle data on median 2009 administrator pay at doctoral public universities from here, and matched it to the UO IR salary data for 2012, here. There’s some guess work in matching titles – seems like a fair amount of title inflation going on, and probably not just at UO. When in doubt I gave the JH folks the benefit of the doubt and put them in the higher paying comparator bin.
Keep in mind that administrators we are hiring deal with a *much* smaller budget than most of the AAU’s, since we’ve got no medical school or engineering to worry about. I think the median for PhD granting institutions is a reasonable comparator for most of these people.
You’d be hard-pressed to claim that UO is underpaying our admins – quite the opposite. From what I can tell generally the high pay extends down to the AVPs and Deans, etc. But I didn’t look at them that carefully. Comments welcome:
(A commenter pointed me to more recent data, I’m updating the spreadsheet that was here, I’ll post it tonight. (OK, never got around to that, sorry.) Meanwhile, I’ll point out that the Chancellor of UCLA is paid $409K, while President Gottfredson gets $540K.)
Unless I’m grossly mistaken, the Beangram is mistaken. At yesterday’s bargaining session, United Academics accepted the offer of 1.5% across-the-board increase for FY13 and FY14, although it proposed to disaggregate the elements conflated in the administrations 2% “merit” adjustment, which was in fact two adjustments (merit and compression) rolled, sloppily, into one.
I do believe you are mistaken. I saw nothing in the paperwork provided by UAUO that said, “we accept.”
I’m going on what they said to Rudnick in the bargaining session.
Here’s a link to a summary chart of their salary proposal, in which the 1.5% across-the-board raises for FY2013 and FY2014 are included (i.e., accepted):
http://uauoregon.org/files/2013/03/UA_SALARY_PROPOSAL_CHART_FINAL20130319.pdf
I do not think the University’s offer was one that could be accepted piecemeal. So even if UAUO and UO agree on the 1.5% ATB for this year, their disagreement on FY 14 and beyond means that no deal is at hand, at least not yet.
So while I believe the University is technically in the right, the UO leadership is now proceeding with an inherently divisive salary raise plan that will split colleges and departments between those who are getting a piddling raise and those who are getting none at all. This will only serve to piss *everybody* off.
The real question is whether our leaders are actively seeking to crush what’s left of faculty morale, or whether they simply did not foresee that the crushing of faculty morale was almost an inevitable outcome of the terms and timing of the deal they did in fact offer.
With all due respect to UO Matters, I never assume active malfeasance is at work in Johnson Hall when gross incompetence suffices as an explanation. I believe our senior leaders are well-intentioned and hardworking, but totally and utterly out of their depth.
Couldn’t agree more. As for whether admin’s offer can or cannot be accepted piecemeal: it’s the same problem, i.e., whether JH chooses to be rigid or flexible, to stonewall or to deal, to prioritize human capital or not. In other words, admin’s offer remains take-it-or-leave-it until it isn’t.
If I were to read into the University’s thought process it’s this:
The heavy hitters won’t be represented by the union because they’ll be in a position to manage their labs or departments. They can be dealt with, and retained, on a case by case basis.
NTTF like visiting professors and research assistants aren’t important, in the eyes of the University, and their status as NTTF reflects that. Need someone to teach that economics course? There are hundreds of new graduates every year that can fill those positions. Are you a grant winning researcher? They’ll find a way to keep them outside of the union rules.
Based on the history of unions at the UO, it’s not a bad strategy. I’m sure that everyone knows of some classified deadweight do-nothing who abuses union rules to keep a strangle-hold on their job, despite being incompetent at it. On the whole I think that we’re at a disadvantage, especially with the strike option having been taken off the table so soon. But perhaps we were crippled with it anyway. Could the UA union as it stands really rally the critical mass needed to make a strike effective? I’ve got a family to feed, so I know that I’ll cross a picket line if push comes to shove.
Whether it’s the correct strategy for the University or not remains to be seen. I’m impressed with the offer, but not impressed with the process so far.
Saying the strike option has been taken off the table is meaningless and unenforceable. It is a statutory right that can only be waived by clear and unambiguous contractual language. Until there is a binding agreement, there can be no waiver. You don’t have to bargain for a right to strike; only to give it up.-ATF
Is there a reason you didn’t use this instead? http://chronicle.com/article/Median-Salaries-of-Senior/137507/
Didn’t see it, aargh. Now updating…
The other thing, is in regards to OUS comparators, they don’t come close to 9/9 in rankings if compared to AAU comparators, and only lag in means because of outliers at two universities (Ohio State and Michigan if I remember right).
If a 1.5% COLA, plus some piddly merit/equity increase, is all UAUO can get with collective bargaining, then they should fold their tent and go home. The net after paying taxes, UAUO dues and likely another parking fee increase won’t leave much in anybody’s pocket.
I suppose OUS’ logic for paying inflated admin salaries is that OUS has gotta pay more to get admins to come to an Oregon public university ranked lower than UCLA, UCB, UCSB, etc… Otherwise, why would anyone want to come here?
go away, troll
The tone of the Beangram gives the impression that they are pitting one group against another. Hmmm, may turn around and bite.
UOM: I think you misunderstand who officer of administration are. We are a huge group and not just the Johnson Hall ELT. We don’t have JH size salaries. Most of us are middle managers, and we make the medium and low size bucks. We include your office managers, we work in many different areas in the university. And yes we have high paid people in our group – coaches, and JH admins. Again please don’t lump all OAs as JH upper admins, because we are not.
In the past OA % increases have always been less than faculty increases at the UO. We are not represented by any union, and it shows in the majority of our salaries.