McMaster University Faculty Association Brief on Faculty Remuneration for the Period July 1, 2002 to June 30, 2003

SUMMARY OF PROPOSALS

1.  Length of Contract: one year (July 1, 2002 - June 30, 2003)

2.  Career Progress/Merit (CP/M):  CP/M awards to equal 130 par units per
     100 faculty

3.  Across-the-Board Increase

 Cost of Living  2.5% (estimate)
 Partial Catchup  7.3%
 Total ATB   9.8%

4.  Benefits

4.1  Professional Development Allowance — 10% increase

4.2  Self-Directed Health Fund:  $500 per year for items not currently covered by medical or dental plans.

4.3  Dental Benefits

a.  inclusion of dental implants under major restorative provisions
b.  move to current year ODA fee schedule in line with MUSA

4.4  Tuition Bursary

 a.  increase benefit to $3,500 per person
 b.  allow portability of tuition bursary to other institutions
 c.  extend tuition bursary to McMaster’s CCE diploma/certificate courses

4.5  Establishment of a Technology Fund of $1,500 per faculty member every three years with one-third of faculty members receiving grants per year

4.6  Expansion of Modem Pool funding to $30,000 per year

4.7  Pension holiday of 100% of employee contributions with a corresponding adjustment of the termination benefit to maintain its value

4.8  Expansion of Pregnancy/Parental Leave benefits to the legislated 52 weeks (top-up to EI)

Academic excellence and innovation are key variables in maintaining and increasing McMaster University’s position among Canadian and international institutions of higher learning.  The unsettled economics of Ontario university funding in the last decade of the twentieth century has demoralized McMaster faculty at all levels and in all Faculties.  Of major importance to them has been the fact that their salaries not only have not kept up with inflation (Table 1) because of the small across-the-board (ATB) increases received in the several past agreements, but also they have seen their peers at neighbouring universities receive higher increases (Table 2).  Given the current demographics both in the student demand and the demand to retain and recruit faculty, one of the greatest needs for McMaster is to provide an environment which recognizes faculty members’ worth by rewarding them adequately.

McMaster has excellent and creative faculty members.  This is proven annually by their success in competitions for research dollars.  As well, McMaster’s teachers have been recognized repeatedly by university, provincial (OCUFA), national (Macleans) and international (3M) bodies.  In all, McMaster faculty have exhibited their excellence and dedication to the institution in spite of the fact that their compensation has been inadequate.  This salary brief will outline the ways in which MUFA believes that compensation should be adjusted for this proposed agreement.  Since faculty compensation is composed of three parts, i.e., merit, ATB and benefits, the brief will review the faculty needs in each of these three areas below.

1.  Length of the Agreement
MUFA proposes a one-year agreement, July 1, 2002 to June 30, 2003.  MUFA is reluctant to enter into multi-year agreements given the poor competitive nature of the last two agreements which spanned two years and three years respectively.  Our members have told us repeatedly about the inadequacy of the previous agreements, given the problems created by the Social Contract in the early 1990s.  Thus we felt a one-year agreement to be the optimum period on which to focus in the current circumstances.
 

2.  Career Progress/Merit (CP/M)
Most faculty have expressed some confidence in the McMaster CP/M scheme.  While there has been criticism about the way in which CP/M is awarded by some Departments and some Faculties, there is confidence in the system.  Because of the overall excellence of the faculty, however, many Departments have found it necessary to reduce CP/M awards for faculty who are doing good (par) service so that they can award better service more highly.  This can lead to an inequity in distributing CP/M awards, effectively making it a zero-sum game.  To counteract this, we propose that for the one-year contract that CP/M be set at 130 par units per 100 faculty with 110 units awarded at the Department level.

MUFA believes that this will somewhat redress the inequity introduced in the CP/M system and allow good faculty to receive appropriate CP/M awards.
 

3.  Across the Board Increase
From Table 1, we can see that there has been an erosion in faculty salaries.  Indeed, the real decrease in faculty salaries compounded, has been 12.7%.  When we try to restore salaries to their real 1991 level, however, a 14.6% increase is needed as shown in column 4.  Maintaining faculty members’ cost of living is an important issue, one that is different from acknowledging career progress and merit (CP/M).  MUFA recognizes that to seek full restoration to 1991 levels in one year would be unreasonable.  MUFA does believe, however, that restoration of half of the past losses to 1991, i.e., 7.3%, is reasonable and necessary.

In addition to catchup, MUFA recommends a one-year across-the-board increase of 2.5% (estimated) equal to December to December change in the All-Canada CPI.  This level of ATB would preclude further salary erosion in the current year.

Overall, then, the ATB increase required for the 2002/2003 salary year is:

   Cost of Living  2.5%
   Partial Catchup 7.3%
  Total ATB  9.8%

We expect that inflection points, CP/M awards and salary floors will be adjusted by the ATB as required by the current CP/M policy.
 

4.  Benefits
In general MUFA members are satisfied with the adequacy of medical and dental benefits.  There are, however, several areas which MUFA believes should be improved or need to be renewed within the aegis of the current negotiations.

4.1  Professional Development Allowance: We recommend a 10% increase in the $1,300 PDA.  PDA is an important non-taxable fund for MUFA members used to support their academic activities.  For many, it supports their membership in academic societies, conference travel and other research activities.  Costs of these items have escalated even faster than CPI and MUFA members are hard-pressed not to be spending out-of-pocket monies to fund their academic work.

4.2  Self-Directed Health Fund:  MUFA recommends a fund equal to $500 per member per year be established to cover health costs not currently covered by our health plans.  These funds could be used for medical or dental expenses such as eyeglasses for dependents, orthodontics, and alternative medical treatment, for example.  The Medical fund could be carried forward for two years, after which any unspent balance of the first year of the accumulated fund would revert to the University.

4.3  Dental Benefits:  MUFA recommends two items to upgrade the dental benefits.

a. The addition of dental implants to allowed therapies under the conditions of the major restorative policy.  Dental implants are an alternative therapy to dental bridges (currently accepted under the policy).  MUFA believes the exclusion of implants to be an oversight in the current policy.

b. A change from the use of the “previous year ODA fee schedule” to the “current year ODA fee schedule” to set reimbursement for dental therapies.  This change would bring MUFA dental benefits in line with those awarded MUSA in their arbitrated settlement.

4.4  Tuition Bursary:  MUFA recommends that the $3,000 annual tuition bursary for dependents be increased to $3,500 and be portable to other institutions.  Furthermore, MUFA recommends that courses of study leading to certificates and diplomas offered by McMaster’s Centre for Continuing Education (CCE) be covered by the tuition bursary for dependents.  In the first instance, portability of the tuition bursary makes the benefit more equitable for MUFA members, rather than being a benefit for only a few.  In the second instance, since CCE has over the past decade improved its academic standing and does indeed teach programmes that can be used for degree credit, it seems logical to extend the tuition bursary to cover such programmes.

4.5  Technology Fund:  There is an increasing need for MUFA members to maintain and upgrade the technical resources they use in their teaching and research.  In the past research grants, PDAs and, in numerous cases, personal funds, have been used to purchase computers, peripherals and other forms of office technology which have become an essential part of a faculty members’ required “tools” to do their jobs.  Because of this haphazard mode of acquisition, major problems exist in computing ability in many parts of the University that threatens our excellence in research and teaching.  To rectify this problem, MUFA recommends the establishment of a technology fund of $1,500 per award per year.  Every faculty member would be eligible, once every three years.  For example, assuming 600 faculty members; 200 would be eligible in year 1, 200 in year 2, 200 in year 3, and so on.  This would provide more timely upgrading of equipment and, perhaps, allow for more uniform operational platforms across the University.  As well, it would alleviate the need to use PDA funds for basic purchases of computer equipment which are needed for faculty to fulfill their duties.

4.6  Modem Pool Funding:  Funding the use of the modem pool has been very beneficial to many faculty.  MUFA recommends continuing the modem pool funding and increasing the pool to $30,000 so that grants per faculty can be sustained at (about) $60 per individual user.

4.7  Pension:  There are two issues concerning pensions which MUFA believes must be raised in this brief.

a. A pension holiday of 100% of employee contributions with a corresponding adjustment of the termination benefit (to maintain its value).  Since the University continues to take 100% pension holidays, MUFA feels its members should have a reciprocal privilege.

b. The development of an SRP.  MUFA believes that the development of a supplementary pension plan is important to retain and recruit faculty, given the low level of the CCRA Maximum pensionable salary.  MUFA contends, however, that since the SRP is not an exclusively faculty remuneration issue, it is not appropriate to be a matter of negotiation for a single-year (or even a multi-year) agreement.  Indeed, we believe this issue to be of paramount importance to several groups at McMaster and MUFA desires to discuss any proposals jointly with all potentially affected groups.

4.8  Pregnancy/Parental Leave:  Recently, changes have been made to federal and provincial legislation regarding pregnancy/parental leaves which extend such benefits to 52 weeks (one year).  Our current policy has been revised to cover the additional time allowed for leave, but no change has as yet been made to the funding (i.e., the top-up over EI payments) granted to individuals taking advantage of the additional weeks of leave.  Since the change in the legislation, a number of institutions have increased their funding to match the new length of leave.  Such changes are crucial to maintaining and fostering diversity in the institution, creating an equitable environment for individuals of child-bearing age.  MUFA recommends the expansion of “top-up” benefits (to 85% of regular salary) under the Pregnancy/Parental Leave policy to cover the 52 weeks legislated allowance.  MUFA further recommends the establishment of a committee to oversee the revision of the Pregnancy/Parental Leave policy to incorporate the changed benefit.

Overall, MUFA desires McMaster University to continue its tradition of excellence and innovation.  We want our members to be excited by the University’s initiatives and to be willing and eager to make McMaster an exciting and rewarding place to pursue their academic careers.  MUFA believes that the proposals made above for enhancing compensation will help to restore faith that McMaster University recognizes the value of its excellent faculty members and thus aid in retention and recruitment in the future.
 

 TABLE ONE:  HISTORY OF CP/M AND ATB PAYMENTS AT McMASTER 1991-2002

YEAR	(1) December to December Inflation Rate (Previous Year)	(2) ATB Paid at McMaster1	(3) Cumulative Decrease in Real Salaries	(4) Catchup required to return to real 1991 level	(5) CP/M Paid at McMaster (par units per 100 faculty)
1991/92	5.0%	5.0%	-	-	120
1992/93	3.8%	2.0%	1.7%	1.7%	120
1993/94	2.1%	0.0%	3.8%	3.9%	110
1994/95	1.7%	-0.5%	5.8%	6.2%	110
1995/96	0.2%	0.0%	6.0%	6.4%	55 + 552
1996/97	1.7%	0.0%	7.6%	8.2%	80 + 302
1997/98	2.2%	0.0%	9.6%	10.6%	120
1998/99	.7%	1.0%3	9.3%	10.3%	120
1999/00	1.0%	1.25%4	9.2%	10.1%	120
2000/01	2.6%	0.5%	11.0%	12.4%	120
2001/02	3.2%	1.25%5	12.7%	14.6%	120

Notes:
1.  Figures in this column do not include one-time salary cuts in the form of unpaid days, or one-time payments.
2.  Payment of the second portion of 1994 and 1995 merit (85 of 110 par units) began January 1, 1999.
3.  Scale increase of 1% on May 1, 1999.
4.  November 1999
5.  October 2001
 
 

 TABLE TWO: ACROSS-THE-BOARD (ATB) INCREASES FOR FACULTY
 AT ONTARIO UNIVERSITIES 1995/96 TO 2000/01

University	1995/96	1996/97	1997/98	1998/99	1999/00	2000/01	Total ATB 1995/96 to 2000/01
Ottawa	0.00	2.00	2.00	1.60	1.50	1.70	8.80
Nipissing	0.00	0.00	2.00	3.40	3.30	0.00	8.70
Laurentian	0.00	1.75	1.75	0.00	2.00	1.76	7.26
Trent	0.00	0.50	2.46	3.24	0.45	0.45	7.10
Windsor	0.00	1.30	1.30	1.50	1.50	1.50	7.10
Queen’s	0.00	0.00	0.90	1.25	2.15	1.70	6.00
Brock	0.00	0.50	1.00	1.00	1.00	2.00	5.50
Toronto	0.00	0.00	0.50	1.50	1.50	2.00	5.50
Waterloo	0.00	0.00	1.00	1.00	1.50	2.00	5.50
Lakehead	0.00	0.00	0.00	1.50	1.50	1.75	4.75
Carleton	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.50	1.50	2.00	4.00
Western	0.00	0.75	0.00	1.00	1.00	1.00	3.75
Guelph	0.00	0.00	0.60	0.60	1.20	1.10	3.50
Wilfrid Laurier	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	2.00	1.00	3.00
York	0.00	0.00	0.00	1.00	0.50	1.50	3.00
Ryerson	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.75	1.00	1.00	2.75
McMASTER	0.00	0.00	0.00	1.00	1.25	0.50	2.75

    
NOTE: ATB for 2001/02 is not included in above table since some universities are still negotiating for that period.  McMaster is still last among the 12 universities for which ATB is known for 2001/02.
 
 

Joint Committee
December 11, 2001