After two weeks of nothing, the admin has put forward an offer. For background, admin made a last minute offer on the eve of the strike, which was rejected by the union, followed two or three days later by UMFA's counteroffer. Which was rejected in something like 36 hours, abut was not followed by a new counter offer until this past Sunday (the 14th). As has also become characteristic of this administration's offers, there's not a lot new. In particular, there's not a lot of new money in this proposal over the last one. In fact, according to the union, the total new money invested in this offer is on the order of $225,000. Which comes to a grand total of $187.50 per member (assuming 1200 members, which is probably a little low--i.e. everything always says 'more than' or 'upwards of' 1200 members So probably even less that $187.50 in real terms. (In fairness, this is over and above the base salary increase they're offering, which is something like 1.5% averaged over three years.)
The really galling part of this is that 75% of the new money in this proposal consists of a $4000 lump sum payment to the 44 UMFA members who are already above maximum, or threshold, or whatever they are above. That is, those members which already make the maximum amount of money in the salary grid. UPDATE: A colleague reminds me that there are many more than 44 full professors at the top of the grid, and speculates that these 44 may be the ones who are already geting 'market stipends', i.e. money above and beyond the salary grid to make up for the vast amounts of money they could be making practicing law or running Fortune 500 companies or whatever they could be doing.(There is another $950 lump sum payment from the previous offer that would benefit 450 members.) Otherwise we're looking at an increase of an average of about 1.5% increase in salaries per year, over three years. Which is basically the same offer as last time. (They get to do this by fiddling with the numbers, i.e. in one proposal, they offer 1.5% across the board, in another they offer 1% in one year, 1.5% in the next and 2% in the third. I'm sure that amounts to real differences in totals and compounding and such, but not enough per individual to make a meaningful difference in terms of recruitment and retention.
So a $4000 lump sum payment to 44 members represents $176,000, or 78% and change of the total new money in this proposal. Benefitting 44 individuals who represent less than 3.7% of the total membership.
There are, in principle, the best paid people in the union. The group they belong to (full professors) in fact have lost the most ground to inflation compared tot he rest of the U15. Average salaries at the other U15 schools have increased about 2.6% (well below inflation) between 2015-2020 fiscal years (all according to Alex Usher, president of Higher Education Strategy Associates).
This is a transparent attempt to pander to some of the haves (and could-haves) at the expense of the have-nots. Sound familiar? and the administration knows that some of the haves, and potential haves, are concerned about their potential lifetime earnings being $120,000 or so less over their lifetime. if they get the same increase as everyone else. Which is not a wad of money to be sneezed at, certainly, but misses the point of these negotiations, which is about increasing salaries, especially at early and mid-career colleagues, so as to be slightly more competitive with competing institutions.
Those 44 members absolutely deserve every cent they make, and what they make lags far behind their other U15 counterparts. But they already make the most money, and most now have roots here, and are unlikely to leave for more money somewhere else. Meantime there are positions that go unfilled, because after a search locates a viable candidate, they decline the offer, because they can make more money living somewhere (at least on the surface) more appealing. And many of these positions are available because they have been vacated by people who have left for greener pastures.
The admin needs to stop playing this divisive shell game with numbers and make a substantial offer. We're never going to get the 3.5% we probably deserve (remember that inflation is currently at 4.4%) but given the much ballyhooed $96 million surplus they crow about (and the recent 6.6% increase in student tuition and fees (the third, and largest, increase in as many years, could they not come up with a way to invest around $400 per member (amounting to less than half a million dollars) in the future and viability of the university? A move like that would at least indicate a sincere wish to bargain, and possibly to end the strike and get us all back to work where we belong.
2 comments:
The shuffling of the percentages around seems annoying and, if I'm doing my math correctly, the difference in the order of percentages only makes a difference for the years when there are increases, not afterwards, meaning that higher percentages should be stacked at the front (ex. 1.5%, then 1%, then 0.5% would be better than 0.5%, then 1%, then 1.5%, but this difference in pay would be relevant for the first two years; by the third, it's the same for both offers).
I don't see the differences in pay between these two scenarios as very meaningful, so you're right in that the shuffling of numbers isn't an effective way to end the strike.
Also, about the big surplus and increases in tuitions, why don't they stop advertising locally? There is not a single person in Winnipeg who is qualified to go to U of M (or who will be qualified within a couple years) but doesn't know about the U of M. Why are they spending money on billboards and other advertising with slogans like "I am 12!" and "Visionary trailblazer."? Maybe there's a good reason for this, but I've never heard it from anyone.
(I think that the differences in campus size between U Manitoba and U Winnipeg are quite different as well, so I think that they're not in direct competition for most people. Then it's just local vs. moving away for other universities, which U Manitoba cannot change.)
Anyway, I didn't know that 2016's strike was the longest as you mentioned on Monday. I actually didn't expect the strike to happen that time, nor did I expect it to be so long. This time, I expect to finish my LING stats class to end before the strike does. :S
Great analysis of Admin's confusing math and messaging, Rob. What seems clear is that they want to divide the union by pitting some members against others. Divide and conquer. My suspicion that "the Dark Side" is bent on actual union-busting grows week by week.
Post a Comment