|
![[About Us]](/images/about.gif)
![[For Members]](/images/members.gif)
![[Links]](/images/links.gif)
|
|
Salary Study Update Issue
UMPSA ADVOCATE
Special Issue.............UMPSA/MEA/NEA..............May,
1998
| The Salary Study Project has been completed
and the Final Report from the joint Salary Study Oversight Committee will
be issued shortly. Because the full report will not be distributed to everyone,
the UMPSA Executive Board and the UMPSA members of the Salary Study Oversight
Committee wish to provide unit members with an overview and update. Copies
of the full report will be available at all campus libraries and campus
Human Resource or Personnel offices. |
|
A History of the Professional Salary Equity
Issue
|
| 1985-1987: A joint UMS/UMPSA committee conducted
an internal review of professional salaries. The committee issued a report
in June 1987 citing questions raised by the study and the need for a more
comprehensive study.
1987-1988: The firm of Hubbard and Revo-Cohen,
Inc. conducted a study to determine the implicit compensation practices
in effect within the University System. They issued a report in September
1988 indicating that salaries for professional positions were based more
on education, experience, and longevity and less on job content than was
expected or desired. There also appeared to be unexplained gender differences
in salaries. This study clearly demonstrated the need for a salary system
based more on job content and not at all on gender. Both sides agreed that
a just compensation system should result in salaries that are equitable
within the University System, incorporate market factors, and reflect no
gender bias.
1990-1996: As per the 1990 UMS/UMPSA contract,
the joint committee selected a compensation consultant (The Wyatt Company)
and proceeded to design a salary system based
on Wyatt’s software
program WYCOMP. Questionnaires were
| |
designed, refined,
issued, and collected. Data was entered into WYCOMP, evaluated, and cleaned.
Market data was collected. A mathematical model was built (using numerical
methods) and incorporated into WYCOMP. A salary structure was designed
to determine a salary range for a range of "predicted grades"
output by WYCOMP. The committee also crafted a set of administrative guidelines
for the salary system detailing the procedures to be used to set individual
salaries. The joint committee issued a report in February 1996 for review
and validation by the University community.
1996-1998: As per the 1995 and 1997 UMS/UMPSA agreements, a team
of evaluators was hired to perform the "fixed-cost" portion of
the committee report. They were charged to gather current job data and
current market data, evaluate professional positions, thoroughly test the
WYCOMP software, and produce an up-to-date database of professional jobs
in addition to a report detailing their observations, methodologies, and
results. Another joint UMS/UMPSA committee oversaw this project.
|
|
Salary Study Project Results
|
| The project results showed that the WYCOMP software was
not doing as good a job of predicting the market value of positions in
today’s job market expected or desired. The problem seems to be based on
a rapidly changing job market and a fixed numerical model built into the
WYCOMP software. Attempts were made to update the existing WYCOMP model
or to develop an entirely new model using multiple linear regression and
neural network techniques. The results were not encouraging. (The best
case produced an R2 in the 0.5-0.6 range, with residuals ranging
from minus $6,000 to plus $7,000.) In other words, a program that was able
to use questionnaire data to predict a "reasonable" salary for
most jobs in 1990 is no longer able to predict a "reasonable"
salary in today’s job market. Fixing the software does not appear to be
a viable option.
The result is a report to be issued before the end of
May detailing the inability of the WYCOMP software to keep up with the
volatile job market and to accommodate the extensive changes
| |
in professional positions within the University System
over the last eight years. The approach
was appropriate, the methodology was valid, and a lot of time, money, and
energy were expended, but the WYCOMP software did not deliver the results
the Committee expected or hoped for.
Some of the problem can be traced to the excessive length of the project
brought about in part by the economic crisis that surfaced shortly after
the election in November 1990 and started to affect the University in December.
Committee members were laid off or left the University and/or the committee
over this period as well. The remaining committee members, like all professionals
who weathered this period, had more work to do and less time available
to put into this project. The Legislature would not consider funding the
salary increases necessary to correct inequities during this time period.
All of these factors resulted in delays contributing to the current problem.
|
|
THE FUTURE
|
| We now know that the WYCOMP software is not the answer.
We also know that the time and effort put into this project have not been
wasted. We have a set of administrative guidelines. We learned a great
deal about the makeup of the unit and now have recent information about
almost 600 unit positions including job descriptions. We also have market
data on over 100 benchmark positions that can be used to analyze the state
of unit salaries.
The problem, however, has not magically
| |
The problem, however, has not magically disappeared. Inequities still
exist. Many employee raises have been put off because "the salary
study will correct the problem." This excuse has been used to keep
professional salaries artificially low for over 10 years. The WYCOMP approach
has not directly resulted in a system that can be implemented. Another
way must be found to establish fair and equitable salaries in the professional
unit and correct these long-standing problems. |
|
NEXT STEPS
|
| There is hope for change. The economic climate is brighter
now than at any time in the last decade. A strong case can be made that
inequities still exist within the University system and must be corrected
to head off potential legal action or human rights complaints. Classified
employees had an 8-year study in the 1980s resulting in salary adjustments
funded by the Legislature; Faculty salaries have increased twice over the
last 10 years over and above the negotiated across-the-board increases
while professional salaries have stagnated. This problem was initially
identified way back in 1985 and other than the salary study, there has
been no organized effort to correct it since. We have expended huge amounts
of time and effort (not to mention over $200,000) over the last 13 years
to try to address this issue. Now is the time to fix the problem once and
for all.
Suggestions for an action plan include the following:
- Analyze the salary study project results for patterns
of inequity.
- Document grievances filed on equity grounds over the
past decade.
| |
Gather information and document existing and potential salary equity
problems.
Begin negotiations with the University System over the implementation
of fair and equitable salary setting policies, procedures, and guidelines.
(The original administrative guidelines developed by the study might be
a good basis for initial discussions.)
Prepare a fact sheet and other materials to be used to educate legislators
and the general public about the problem and gain support for additional
funding for professional salaries.
Consult with a compensation professional who has been working with
the MEA and the technical college units recently (and who submitted one
of the original proposals to the committee in 1990) about possible strategies.
You can help in this effort. Please contact an UMPSA representative
if you have knowledge of any existing or potential salary inequity. We
must document examples of salary discrimination to support our case. If
you know or even suspect a salary inequity situation or simply wish to
make suggestions, contact:
|
OTHER ASSOCIATION NEWS
| The UMPSA Executive Board has scheduled meetings at the
end of May and again in June to discuss strategy and tactics to be used
to continue the fight for fair and equitable salaries for Professionals.
On other fronts, the Executive board has already voted to take the University
to arbitration over the University’s unilateral language changes to the
current Agreement
after it was ratified. |
|
We are also monitoring additional typographic(?)
errors the University made in the printed version of the contract they
recently distributed to unit members. A letter has been sent to David Lane
pointing out some specific discrepancies and requesting that an addendum
be sent to unit members with corrections. We are also pursuing a number
of grievances to possible arbitration. |
|
![[UMPSA]](/images/umpsa.png)
![[Feedback]](/images/info.gif){kind=small}