| |
At the last Guild membership
meeting of fall semester, spirited debate took place over the salary deal
that had been tentatively struck for 2005-06, and which members were
trying to decide whether to ratify or not. Some members voiced their
disapproval for a portion of the deal that called for a fixed dollar
amount to be added to each cell of the full-timers' salary schedule
(schedule A). It is now known that the fixed amount is $3335 per cell,
retroactive to July 2005, but at the time the exact figure was unknown and
some felt that those on the upper tiers of the schedule would be ripped
off.
It is certainly true that $3335 added to each cell is a 3.66% raise
for those on column V, step 31 and 7.52% for those on column I, step 4,
and that these two cells (effective July 2005) represent the best and
worst cells on schedule A. But you will recall that this differing
percentage raise was intentional, as our study of salaries in comparable
districts revealed that full-timer salaries at Glendale were most lacking
on the lower tiers. This fixed dollar approach was a one-time correction
that will be replaced by a traditional fixed-percentage raise next year,
and I believe it was with this understanding that the package of
negotiated items was ratified last year by a 211 to 8 vote.
However, I want to delve a little deeper into the numbers (I remain
an unrepentant math geek) and examine the history of schedule A salaries.
On the chart below, you will see salaries at various positions from May
'04 (just before I became Guild president), January '05 (after last year's
raise was fully implemented), and the new figures retroactive to July '05
based on this year's raise. Also, for reference, you will see the
corresponding figures from July '94.
|
Date: |
7/94 |
5/04 |
1/05 |
7/05 |
|
Worst cell: |
28,872 |
37,526 |
39,432 |
47,691 |
|
Column I, Step 4: |
32,478 |
42,212 |
44,356 |
47,691 |
|
Column V, Step 8: |
45,901 |
59,660 |
62,691 |
66,026 |
|
Best cell: |
60,449 |
84,145 |
88,420 |
94,408 |
|
Best to worst ratio: |
2.09 to 1 |
2.24 to 1 |
2.24 to 1 |
1.98 to 1 |
The last row is worth noting. During
the decade preceding my becoming Guild president, the ratio between the
highest salary in schedule A and the lowest grew from 2.09:1 to 2.24:1.
This was due to the fact that in that decade, the percentage raise given
to "longevity" steps (those higher than step 13) grew from 2% to 3%. That
is, after reaching step 13, one now receives a 3% step raise every third
year rather than a 2% step raise. Also, a new step 28 was added to column
V during this period. No corresponding improvements occurred at the low
end of schedule A.
With the current year's salary deal, we not only improved the lower
end relatively more, but the district was also very willing to eliminate
the first three steps of schedule A. They acknowledged the problem that
our salary study showed, and also recognized that these steps were not
frequently used (most faculty hired for full-time work these days are
fairly experienced). However, one should also remember that a new
longevity step 31 was added to column V in July '05, so we haven't ignored
the high end. In fact, you can see the combined effect of these changes
better in the chart below:
|
% change: |
7/94 - 7/05 |
5/04 - 7/05 |
|
Worst cell: |
65.2% |
27.1% |
|
Column I, Step
4: |
46.8% |
13.0% |
|
Column V, Step
8: |
43.8% |
10.7% |
|
Best cell: |
56.2% |
12.2% |
Eliminating the 3 lowest steps of
course had a dramatically positive effect on what would now be the worst
cell. However, putting that aside as an "outlier" we see that the % raises
for our other 3 reference cells are comparable. Over the last two rounds
of negotiations, we have gotten a 13% raise for column I, step 4 (what is
now the worst cell), but a 12.2% increase in the best cell. In fact, if
anyone should be complaining, it looks like it should be middlers like
those on column V, step 8 who received only a 10.7% over the last two
years and also did slightly worse over the entire 11 year period.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that we are trying to look out for
the needs of all of our members, and we have to make "mid-course
corrections" from time to time in order to do that. Hopefully people have
faith in our internal democratic processes to make good decisions on
average, even if that means their view winds up on the losing end of a
vote from time to time. I will continue to seek the best deal for our
membership given our many constraints, and I always welcome your
suggestions and comments.
&
back to top |
|
|
