We recently received an email from a member, saying that there were rumours circulating that the Faculty Association had been offered a general rise in salary at the bargaining table, and we had turned it down. This rumour, of course, has caused concerns among our members.
We’d like to assure you that thus far the university has most definitely not offered “a general rise in salary.” We can’t imagine what might be at the base of the rumour, given that the university has insisted repeatedly to us that “cost neutrality” in salary is a significant part of their mandate.
If you go back through our blog post reviewing the university’s initial settlement offer, you’ll note that the university offered us three tiny things (second to last paragraph). None of them had anything to do with compensation.
On February 1, the university made three specific proposals on compensation, each of which is designed to reduce our ongoing salary and benefits compensation. The first proposal suggests that the FA agree to reduce the benefits coverage for members in order to pay for a market adjustment for the nursing faculty. Paying for the market adjustment this way would be consistent with the university’s mandate of “cost neutrality.” The second proposal suggests that it should be harder for faculty to get the lump sum bonus for research productivity (by raising the trigger that allows that bonus to be paid out). The third compensation proposal was to eliminate the lump sum bonus we’ve received in recent years associated with university fundraising activity. Each of these lump sum bonuses, when paid out, results in a bonus equal to one percent of your regular salary. Neither of these bonuses are part of the university’s purported “cost neutrality” mandate. We can assure you that we are concerned about members’ compensation and will work to achieve more, and not less, compensation for you.