McMASTER UNIVERSITY ADMINISTRATION PROPOSAL
FOR THE REMUNERATION OF FACULTY FOR 1997-98 AND 1998-99
Once again, both we and the Faculty Association are in the
position of tabling remuneration packages in the context of
considerable uncertainty. The Provincial Government has delayed its
announcement of the grant to universities and the range of
permissible tuition charges. These two variables have considerable
consequence to the University's financial position. Nevertheless,
we respect the Tripartite Agreement/ Joint Committee timetable and
therefore, propose the following opening position:
1. The University Administration has consistently stated its
commitment to the Career Progress/Merit (CP/M) component of faculty
remuneration. This commitment is congenial with the
Administration's repeated position of supporting and rewarding
excellence. The commitment to CP/M, on both the Administration and
Faculty Association sides, is an important defining and
differentiating feature of this University. To reaffirm our
commitment to CP/M, the Administration proposes funding of the CP/M
scheme for both 1997/98 and 1998/99 at the rate of 110 par units
per year.
2. Our commitment to full funding of CP/M is made in full
recognition of the impact of these salary increases on the
University's budget. The funding of CP/M at 110 par units per year
results in a compounded annual increase of the faculty salary line
of over 2%, and the commensurate loss of flexibility in the faculty
envelopes. In addition, some externally- generated salary related
costs, such as higher CPP contributions, impact negatively on
faculty envelopes. In light of our offer of full CP/M funding for
1997/98 and 1998/99, and the financial realities of the
University's budget, we propose no across-the-board (ATB) increase
in 1997/98 or 1998/99.
3. Our current negotiated agreement includes three unpaid days off.
Our analysis of the financial state of the University leads to the
view of the need for a continuation of unpaid days. The exact
number and timing of these days are subject for negotiation.
4. We trust that the spirit of collegiality and consensus that
characterized the Faculty Benefits Review will continue in this
remuneration negotiation. We propose a continuation of benefit
discussions to design a cost-effective benefit package that suits
the needs of faculty. Notwithstanding the recent changes in
benefits, medical and dental costs continue to increase as a result
of further actions by governments, our aging population, and
increases in rate schedules. We shall share with the Association
the information about benefit costs that we are providing to the
Budget Committee. We propose that the benefit negotiation focus
initially on medical devices, the defined contribution segment of
the dental programme, supplementary maternity leaves and the
tuition waiver/bursary programmes.
5. In 1996/97, we agreed to provide $20,000 to support
faculty's use of the enhanced (self- funding) modem pool. This
agreement was motivated by the claim that this assistance was
necessary to support activities of faculty. The data indicate
that the focus on the enhanced modem pool was unfounded: current
estimates project that only $2,500 of the allocated $20,000 will be
used. Thus, we recommend the elimination of the $20,000 pool for
modem access for faculty, but we are prepared to discuss how this
money may be used to enhance the scholarly activities of faculty.
December 19th, 1996