Earlier this week, I was riffing on how to make good salary comparisons when I came across a faculty union which has been doing just that.
The faculty union at the University of Victoria is feeling a bit aggrieved that its members’ pay is lower than at comparable universities. When I first saw their numbers, I was a bit skeptical: UVic went through a significant generational shift nine or ten years ago, so their age/rank profile might potentially account for some of the difference. But, as page three of this document shows, UVic trails comparator institutions, even controlling for rank. (The fact that the comparators differ across ranks suggests a bit of cherry-picking, but the existence of a gap is undeniable.)
I was reflecting on the consequences of this – would the university actually be able to give the faculty a pay raise over inflation without the BC government (which takes an active oversight role in such pay negotiations) coming down on them like a load of bricks? – then my eyes drifted to the right… and my jaw dropped.
The columns on that left side of the page compare U Vic profs to those elsewhere, based on rank by salary. The ones on the right show UVic’s position in the Maclean’s rankings (2nd among comprehensives), and among Canadian institutions in the Times Higher Education rankings (8th). Peruse the text and you soon realize why they’ve chosen this data: they want pay raises to reflect their level of excellence.
Got that? There’s a CAUT-affiliated union out there making a case for pay based on productivity and excellence.
I see a big win-win here. The university is constrained by government in what it can give out (hard to say for sure, but more than 6% over 3 years would be tough). But the UVic faculty, clearly, on the basis of merit and the existing pay gap, deserve a much bigger bump – say, 15% over three years. I don’t have their actual salary figures at hand, but my guess is that this would cost an extra $14-15 million over three years.
So here’s what I propose: every other medical/doctoral or comprehensive university in the country should agree to pony up $500,000 over three years and ship it to David Turpin at Vic (bank drafts, unmarked tens and twenties – whatever) so he can give his professoriate a big raise in exchange for an explicit commitment to keep up those levels of performance. With that precedent set, every university in the country should be able to bargain on the basis of relating pay to external measures of excellence and productivity.
For that, half a million would be cheap. C’mon guys: do it.
Tweet this post
On the cherry-picking question: this list of comparator institutions was provided by the university’s administration. The Faculty Association accepted it, but it’s the administration’s own list.
Hi Richard,
An important point. Thanks for clarifying.
And for clarity, I should say that the university uses a different comparators list for setting the salaries of senior executives (click here).
As well, the association is distinctly aware of the pitfalls of using external measurements of assorted performance indicators. The university pushes them, so the association replies in kind, but the association has repeatedly expressed serious reservations about measurability issues (reservations I’m sure you’ve seen elsewhere, too).
That link doesn’t seem to work – which institutions are they, exactly?
The link was this: http://uvicfa.ca/PDF%20sources/2012BargainingBulletin5.pdf
The executive’s comparators are Queen’s, Waterloo, McMaster, Calgary, Guelph, Western, Carleton, SFU, Saskatchewan, Wilfrid Laurier, Dalhousie, and Memorial.
The faculty’s comparators are the same, plus UBC, Alberta, Manitoba, Toronto, York, Windsor, Ottawa, New Brunswick, and Memorial.
An explicit commitment to keep up our standing? We’ve done it already! Check the back years of the macleans ranking. We’ve been near the top for years!