So this post kicks off the round of what we call "CBA Bargaining" as opposed to "Health Care Bargaining." From now until roughly March, we'll be bargaining with the university over wages, fees, and working conditions.
I've heard from a few of you that your departments are freaking out about the possibility that we might get raises and that would destroy their departmental budget. The bargaining team is well aware of the current state of the UO's budget. The way we see it, it is our job to go to the bargaining table and tell the UO what GTFs want and need. Conversely, it is the UO's job to tell us what they can (or cannot) afford to do for GTFs along those lines. The people who represent the UO are generally pretty good at what they do, so you can rest assured that if cuts to fees or raises do come down the pike, the UO has the money to pay for them.
One of the main ways we determine what kind of raises GTFs need is to look at comparator data. The UO has eight AAU-designated comparator schools. We've been looking at this data over the last decade as we bargain with the UO. We started out about 30% behind the average earned by grad employees at our comparator schools, but have caught up to the point where we're only 5% behind.
How this data will mesh with our thinking about fees and budgets is still to be determined, but I thought I'd throw the comparator data up here when we had it. Maybe you can tell us what you're thinking about wages and fees in light of this data.
4 comments:
Is there similar comparator data for the cost-of-living in those other university areas? Would such data help or hurt our bargaining?
Toby,
This data is adjusted for cost-of-living. We have been using the same calculator for the past six years and the UO seems to accept is as genuine.
I should say, that the data is best used as a guideline, rather than anything that is scientific. For one thing, not all universities readily publish their minimum wage salaries at .5FTE, so at some level there is a bit of art involved here. Also, the "average" minimum wage is tough because some universities have different levels of pay -like we do- and we have no data as to how many people are in each level. Lastly, we have no idea how many people at each university earn the minimum wage. About half the GTFs at UO earn it, but we have no data for other institutions.
So, is the data worthless? Not at all. We have been using the same model for about 8 years now, so we can track our progress against the average and the UO accepts our data as genuine, if not the determining factor in their decision making process.
We use this data to point out tot he UO that as long as they continue to underpay GTFs, they will have trouble competing for graduate students. There are other factors this year that may seem more compelling to the UO.
Hmm, was that "adjusted for CoL" text in the graphic the whole time? Cause if so, now I feel dumb. Please tell me you just added it after my comment. :)
Sure, I added it afterward.
Post a Comment