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