Casey Martin seems like a great coach and person, but what are the economic pressures causing golf coach’s salaries to be higher (and increase faster) than heads of large academic departments? It’s a sport guaranteed to lose money, has only moderate alumni interest, and there are a large pool of mediocre pro golfers willing to take the helm.
And why is the women’s golf coach paid 50% less, when there is little chance for either men and women’s golf to do anything but cost the university a moderate amount of money?
UO Matters
04/08/2014
The economic pressures are
a) Nike sells golf gear, and wants the publicity
b) Nike give UO’s coaches and administrators $30K worth of free clothes and sports equipment, in return for them signing UO to a product endorsement contract with giveaway terms.
ScienceDuck
04/08/2014
I thought it was that the AD thinks it is worth overspending on coaches if it improves his chance to get a bonus for winning the Director’s Cup.
Just an academic
04/08/2014
…and there are profs at the UO who think we shouldn’t have organized a union…and that we would have gotten raises anyway….
anomaly
04/08/2014
Some of the anti-union profs recognize the good but also the BAD aspects of the union. Unfortunately for many of us the BAD far outweighs the good.
Same Song
04/08/2014
Such as….? (The bad?)
Oryx
04/08/2014
Here are a few, for starters:
(1) The inclusion of postdocs and research staff in the “faculty” union leads to such things as mandated raises for personnel who are paid not by the university, but by fixed outside sources. What happens if X, Y, and Z are required to have raises, but the pool of money available for X, Y, and Z doesn’t increase? Answer: X, Y, and Z’s hours are cut. Has this happened? Yes.
(2) The inclusion of postdocs in the union means that roughly half of the science faculty are not in the faculty union, since one cannot be a member of a union in which one supervises members of the union. In addition, faculty with external grants, even without postdocs, are usually out of the bargaining unit. This leads to the odd situation in science departments that there are faculty who are in and faculty who are out of the bargaining unit. I’ve noted this before. What consequences does this have? Raises for people in and out of the bargaining unit come from different pools. If there were one pool, departments’ assessments of merits could be fairly easily connected to raises, as has been done in the past. Suppose one has two pools in which the faculty in pool A rank higher (by whatever metric) than those in pool B. The low-ranked people in A will get less than the high ranked people in B, despite being “better.” Since there’s a very high correlation, in the sciences, between performance (grants, …) and being excluded from the bargaining unit, this perverse situation does, in fact, exist.
This is a long comment, and I’m guessing from the total lack of a response to similar previous comments from the union, that this will also be greeted by silence. Or, almost worse, platitudes that claim that I’m griping when really everything is so much better than it would have been otherwise, that seem oblivious to the painful inefficiencies and harm caused by (1) and the perverse incentives created by (2). And I haven’t even gone into (3), (4), …
uomattersPost author | 04/08/2014
I would like to figure out how to get PI’s into the faculty union or at least get their voice heard. Several PI’s participated in the bargaining caucuses, and their input was very helpful, and it drove the union to emphasize merit and external equity pay increases – proposals which the administration mostly rejected.
On the issue of post-doc pay, my recollection is that NSF budgets at least assume 5% annual pay increases. I think it also may be the case that UO’s estimated benefits costs (OPE) are higher than the actual costs. I will look into this as well.
If you send me an email at [email protected] it would help me help get this done.
ScienceDuck
04/08/2014
This is in reply to uomatters below. NSF and NIH assume pay increases However, these pay increases are mandated for postdocs that have their own funding from NIH or NSF. These externally-funded postdocs are also not part of the union (because they have only a courtesy appointment at the UO). This is another wedge dividing union and non-union.
And I agree with Oryx’s points. Unions have traditionally been able to bargain for job security and benefits/working conditions. With post-docs, research associates and research assistants, every position is funding contingent so job security can’t be bargained into existence. And salary increases, if they hit the funding cap, will be converted into reduced hours.
On the other hand, PIs have been sick of “budgeting” for postdocs with yearly raises only to be told salary increases aren’t allowed by the State. So there is a balance of good effects and bad, and time will tell the net gain or loss.
uomattersPost author | 04/08/2014
My most recently funded NSF included paid staff (not post docs). The budget template (which I think originated with the NSF) assumed 5% raises, paid out of the grant. I remember an earlier NSF proposal (sadly not funded) with post-docs paid out of the grant. That template also assumed 5% raises.
Oryx
04/09/2014
To UOM 8:46: This sounds good. About (1): you’re right that grants, at least NSF grants, budget postdoc raises, but there are research personnel in the bargaining unit who are not paid by these, but by fixed external sources, leading to the problem sketched above.
WTF
04/09/2014
To Science Duck. If salary increases are being converted into reduced hours, that is a violation of the CBA. My understanding is that the University (Central Admin) did cover the raises for many, if not all, of the funding contingent positions this year.
Faculty unions suck. Period.
04/08/2014
The bad? Sure, the union got me an 11.5% raise, and kept MG from messing with my lucrative consulting work, but then they uh, well, they uh …
OK, maybe it actually worked out pretty well. But you’ll never catch me saying that in public.
anomaly
04/08/2014
Well……. if you have to ask, you are going to be be happy at Eugene Community College anyway. Enjoy!
Same Song
04/09/2014
Cute…but not a real answer. Got anything specific and substantive?
anomaly
04/09/2014
Yes. See above. Oryx nicely lays out a couple of key issues that have been raised here and elsewhere, time and again, only to be ignored and mocked by the unionista. There is a fine line between passion for your cause and being just plain nuts and I have witnessed that line being crossed several times by UO union activists.
Same Song
04/09/2014
There may be legitimate concerns. But being plain nuts? C’mon. Oryx agrees that the “bad far outweighs the good” yet names only 2 issues – issues that can and are being discussed. I don’t see the evidence to support that claim.
1) On mandated raises for people not paid by the University. First, the University agreed to those raises so they are responsible for them. Why blame the union for the University agreeing to something and then passing on the costs to others? Second, the issue of where the money comes from is separate from whether we should be paying and treating those faculty well or not.
2) Yes, we have some issues with those in and out of the bargaining unit, and that has created some strange consequences. But the nice thing about a union is that it provides a structured forum for addressing problems like these and it compels the administration to be at the table to discuss important issues.
Issues? Yes. But mostly fixable. Do they rise to the level of “the bad far outweighs the good”? Hardly.
WTF
04/09/2014
The issues have not been ignored – they are being discussed by the union and the administration. If you haven’t yet done anything to have your voice heard other than complain on this blog, I encourage you to do so.
In the coming months, discussions on the next bargaining platform will begin. That is everyone’s opportunity to provide input.
If you want to have more influence over the union’s bargaining platform, become a member and run for office. It’s here to stay so the sooner folks get past that question and get involved, the sooner their specific concerns will be addressed.
not popular
04/08/2014
At least union raises will replace the popularity contest that decides merit raises in my Dept. For once I will see something based on my worth rather than some subjective scheme of who is “better”. Funny how the anti-union crowd is composed primarily of Nike/Knight Profs and other 1%’ers.
WTF WTF
04/09/2014
WTF-The problem is the people encountering these issues are excluded from the union….joining is not an option. While the union and admin “discuss” these issues, time continues to tick away on those grants and tenure clocks. Moreover, these faculty are not covered by the CBA (not in the union and cannot join the union) and it remains unclear if they are eligible for union representation for grievances, etc.
SS- you illustrate my point nicely “…we should be paying and treating those faculty well or not…”. The fall back response is to call PI’s 1%ers and start a rant about fair pay, etc. This is NOT the issue for everyone; no matter how much some people want it to be.
The CBA has created a group of faculty with newly minted BS degrees and mandates salary floors that do not address the wide range of skills (required but not gained with a BS) and unique situations across campus. This is making UO a less competitive place to come and start a career for research intensive fields that rely on extramural funding (Note: UO has an appalling lack of intramural funds for research). Good luck with the faculty hiring initiative BTW.
Unions deal best with broad categories of workers that do the same thing. Mid-sized research universities are very diverse and squeezing everyone into a single faculty category is going to be a painful process; the exact results of which remain to be seen.
dog
04/09/2014
There are some departments in which 1/2 the faculty is in the union and the other 1/2 is not. There are different timetables
associated with raises and slightly difference procedures for
those in the BU and not in the BU. This causes headaches.
WTF
04/10/2014
Dog: We are getting raises for the first time in 5 years for many and the ability to negotiate on a regular basis will ensure at least regular raises in the future.
Yet you are choosing to focus on “slightly difference (sic) procedures” which “causes headaches”.
We’ve had more than headaches for years around here and have finally made significant progress in many areas, at least partly because of United Academics.
Isn’t it time time to recognize the gains and “cross the aisle” to work on solutions to the “headaches” rather than just complaining?
And to dog and others who will claim that they have no way to contribute because they are not in the bargaining unit, I can assure you that the leadership of United Academics is interested in working with all faculty constituencies. UA recognizes that the terms it negotiates affects non-bargaining unit faculty members too. For instance, when UA negotiates raises, non-BU members get those raises too.
If any faculty, BU or non-BU, have concerns you think UA needs to be aware of as it begins considering the next bargaining platform, contact someone on the Executive Council:
Conversations I’ve had with colleagues in my department or institute in the past few years about how much we want raises: a few. Maybe 5, all short.
Conversations I’ve had with colleagues in my department / institute in the past few years about funding research, supporting postdocs and other researchers, budget and personnel issues: Dozens, at least. Far too many to remember, many of them long and involved.
What “WTF” doesn’t get is that for many of us, the issues that he/she dismisses as trivial are vitally important.
An analogy. Suppose the union and the administration make it so that your classes have on average 5 fewer students, but you are required to wear a thick parka while in the classroom. You complain. ‘Aren’t you grateful for these lower class sizes?’ ‘But it makes my job harder.’ ‘Being uncomfortable violates the CBA. There’s now a procedure and a structured forum for addressing problems like these.’
dog
04/10/2014
for me (and maybe other researchers) things like gains are averaged
over relatively long timescales. Also, in my view, there is a lot of short term reaction going on to the fact that we all got raises – nothing wrong with that but short term “success” doesn’t directly map into long term gains. I want to see a) improved research facilities, b)improved opportunities for graduate students and c) a better articulation of how the UO’s research mission is improved through the Union and its CBA activities.
WTF
04/10/2014
All fair requests and I, for one, don’t mean to trivialize any of these concerns. They were described as “headaches” which makes them seem more trivial than they maybe are.
Oryx
04/10/2014
Thanks, WTF — I appreciate your reply!
Carousel Rider
04/10/2014
Speaking of raises and the union — what is the process to get your union dues in excess of the fair share refunded? No word on that and it is my understanding we could do that as of March. Any interest being paid on the monies taken out?
FIGURE 5 says it all…
Casey Martin seems like a great coach and person, but what are the economic pressures causing golf coach’s salaries to be higher (and increase faster) than heads of large academic departments? It’s a sport guaranteed to lose money, has only moderate alumni interest, and there are a large pool of mediocre pro golfers willing to take the helm.
And why is the women’s golf coach paid 50% less, when there is little chance for either men and women’s golf to do anything but cost the university a moderate amount of money?
The economic pressures are
a) Nike sells golf gear, and wants the publicity
b) Nike give UO’s coaches and administrators $30K worth of free clothes and sports equipment, in return for them signing UO to a product endorsement contract with giveaway terms.
I thought it was that the AD thinks it is worth overspending on coaches if it improves his chance to get a bonus for winning the Director’s Cup.
…and there are profs at the UO who think we shouldn’t have organized a union…and that we would have gotten raises anyway….
Some of the anti-union profs recognize the good but also the BAD aspects of the union. Unfortunately for many of us the BAD far outweighs the good.
Such as….? (The bad?)
Here are a few, for starters:
(1) The inclusion of postdocs and research staff in the “faculty” union leads to such things as mandated raises for personnel who are paid not by the university, but by fixed outside sources. What happens if X, Y, and Z are required to have raises, but the pool of money available for X, Y, and Z doesn’t increase? Answer: X, Y, and Z’s hours are cut. Has this happened? Yes.
(2) The inclusion of postdocs in the union means that roughly half of the science faculty are not in the faculty union, since one cannot be a member of a union in which one supervises members of the union. In addition, faculty with external grants, even without postdocs, are usually out of the bargaining unit. This leads to the odd situation in science departments that there are faculty who are in and faculty who are out of the bargaining unit. I’ve noted this before. What consequences does this have? Raises for people in and out of the bargaining unit come from different pools. If there were one pool, departments’ assessments of merits could be fairly easily connected to raises, as has been done in the past. Suppose one has two pools in which the faculty in pool A rank higher (by whatever metric) than those in pool B. The low-ranked people in A will get less than the high ranked people in B, despite being “better.” Since there’s a very high correlation, in the sciences, between performance (grants, …) and being excluded from the bargaining unit, this perverse situation does, in fact, exist.
This is a long comment, and I’m guessing from the total lack of a response to similar previous comments from the union, that this will also be greeted by silence. Or, almost worse, platitudes that claim that I’m griping when really everything is so much better than it would have been otherwise, that seem oblivious to the painful inefficiencies and harm caused by (1) and the perverse incentives created by (2). And I haven’t even gone into (3), (4), …
I would like to figure out how to get PI’s into the faculty union or at least get their voice heard. Several PI’s participated in the bargaining caucuses, and their input was very helpful, and it drove the union to emphasize merit and external equity pay increases – proposals which the administration mostly rejected.
On the issue of post-doc pay, my recollection is that NSF budgets at least assume 5% annual pay increases. I think it also may be the case that UO’s estimated benefits costs (OPE) are higher than the actual costs. I will look into this as well.
If you send me an email at [email protected] it would help me help get this done.
This is in reply to uomatters below. NSF and NIH assume pay increases However, these pay increases are mandated for postdocs that have their own funding from NIH or NSF. These externally-funded postdocs are also not part of the union (because they have only a courtesy appointment at the UO). This is another wedge dividing union and non-union.
And I agree with Oryx’s points. Unions have traditionally been able to bargain for job security and benefits/working conditions. With post-docs, research associates and research assistants, every position is funding contingent so job security can’t be bargained into existence. And salary increases, if they hit the funding cap, will be converted into reduced hours.
On the other hand, PIs have been sick of “budgeting” for postdocs with yearly raises only to be told salary increases aren’t allowed by the State. So there is a balance of good effects and bad, and time will tell the net gain or loss.
My most recently funded NSF included paid staff (not post docs). The budget template (which I think originated with the NSF) assumed 5% raises, paid out of the grant. I remember an earlier NSF proposal (sadly not funded) with post-docs paid out of the grant. That template also assumed 5% raises.
To UOM 8:46: This sounds good. About (1): you’re right that grants, at least NSF grants, budget postdoc raises, but there are research personnel in the bargaining unit who are not paid by these, but by fixed external sources, leading to the problem sketched above.
To Science Duck. If salary increases are being converted into reduced hours, that is a violation of the CBA. My understanding is that the University (Central Admin) did cover the raises for many, if not all, of the funding contingent positions this year.
The bad? Sure, the union got me an 11.5% raise, and kept MG from messing with my lucrative consulting work, but then they uh, well, they uh …
OK, maybe it actually worked out pretty well. But you’ll never catch me saying that in public.
Well……. if you have to ask, you are going to be be happy at Eugene Community College anyway. Enjoy!
Cute…but not a real answer. Got anything specific and substantive?
Yes. See above. Oryx nicely lays out a couple of key issues that have been raised here and elsewhere, time and again, only to be ignored and mocked by the unionista. There is a fine line between passion for your cause and being just plain nuts and I have witnessed that line being crossed several times by UO union activists.
There may be legitimate concerns. But being plain nuts? C’mon. Oryx agrees that the “bad far outweighs the good” yet names only 2 issues – issues that can and are being discussed. I don’t see the evidence to support that claim.
1) On mandated raises for people not paid by the University. First, the University agreed to those raises so they are responsible for them. Why blame the union for the University agreeing to something and then passing on the costs to others? Second, the issue of where the money comes from is separate from whether we should be paying and treating those faculty well or not.
2) Yes, we have some issues with those in and out of the bargaining unit, and that has created some strange consequences. But the nice thing about a union is that it provides a structured forum for addressing problems like these and it compels the administration to be at the table to discuss important issues.
Issues? Yes. But mostly fixable. Do they rise to the level of “the bad far outweighs the good”? Hardly.
The issues have not been ignored – they are being discussed by the union and the administration. If you haven’t yet done anything to have your voice heard other than complain on this blog, I encourage you to do so.
In the coming months, discussions on the next bargaining platform will begin. That is everyone’s opportunity to provide input.
If you want to have more influence over the union’s bargaining platform, become a member and run for office. It’s here to stay so the sooner folks get past that question and get involved, the sooner their specific concerns will be addressed.
At least union raises will replace the popularity contest that decides merit raises in my Dept. For once I will see something based on my worth rather than some subjective scheme of who is “better”. Funny how the anti-union crowd is composed primarily of Nike/Knight Profs and other 1%’ers.
WTF-The problem is the people encountering these issues are excluded from the union….joining is not an option. While the union and admin “discuss” these issues, time continues to tick away on those grants and tenure clocks. Moreover, these faculty are not covered by the CBA (not in the union and cannot join the union) and it remains unclear if they are eligible for union representation for grievances, etc.
SS- you illustrate my point nicely “…we should be paying and treating those faculty well or not…”. The fall back response is to call PI’s 1%ers and start a rant about fair pay, etc. This is NOT the issue for everyone; no matter how much some people want it to be.
The CBA has created a group of faculty with newly minted BS degrees and mandates salary floors that do not address the wide range of skills (required but not gained with a BS) and unique situations across campus. This is making UO a less competitive place to come and start a career for research intensive fields that rely on extramural funding (Note: UO has an appalling lack of intramural funds for research). Good luck with the faculty hiring initiative BTW.
Unions deal best with broad categories of workers that do the same thing. Mid-sized research universities are very diverse and squeezing everyone into a single faculty category is going to be a painful process; the exact results of which remain to be seen.
There are some departments in which 1/2 the faculty is in the union and the other 1/2 is not. There are different timetables
associated with raises and slightly difference procedures for
those in the BU and not in the BU. This causes headaches.
Dog: We are getting raises for the first time in 5 years for many and the ability to negotiate on a regular basis will ensure at least regular raises in the future.
Yet you are choosing to focus on “slightly difference (sic) procedures” which “causes headaches”.
We’ve had more than headaches for years around here and have finally made significant progress in many areas, at least partly because of United Academics.
Isn’t it time time to recognize the gains and “cross the aisle” to work on solutions to the “headaches” rather than just complaining?
And to dog and others who will claim that they have no way to contribute because they are not in the bargaining unit, I can assure you that the leadership of United Academics is interested in working with all faculty constituencies. UA recognizes that the terms it negotiates affects non-bargaining unit faculty members too. For instance, when UA negotiates raises, non-BU members get those raises too.
If any faculty, BU or non-BU, have concerns you think UA needs to be aware of as it begins considering the next bargaining platform, contact someone on the Executive Council:
http://www.uauoregon.org/about/ec/
Conversations I’ve had with colleagues in my department or institute in the past few years about how much we want raises: a few. Maybe 5, all short.
Conversations I’ve had with colleagues in my department / institute in the past few years about funding research, supporting postdocs and other researchers, budget and personnel issues: Dozens, at least. Far too many to remember, many of them long and involved.
What “WTF” doesn’t get is that for many of us, the issues that he/she dismisses as trivial are vitally important.
An analogy. Suppose the union and the administration make it so that your classes have on average 5 fewer students, but you are required to wear a thick parka while in the classroom. You complain. ‘Aren’t you grateful for these lower class sizes?’ ‘But it makes my job harder.’ ‘Being uncomfortable violates the CBA. There’s now a procedure and a structured forum for addressing problems like these.’
for me (and maybe other researchers) things like gains are averaged
over relatively long timescales. Also, in my view, there is a lot of short term reaction going on to the fact that we all got raises – nothing wrong with that but short term “success” doesn’t directly map into long term gains. I want to see a) improved research facilities, b)improved opportunities for graduate students and c) a better articulation of how the UO’s research mission is improved through the Union and its CBA activities.
All fair requests and I, for one, don’t mean to trivialize any of these concerns. They were described as “headaches” which makes them seem more trivial than they maybe are.
Thanks, WTF — I appreciate your reply!
Speaking of raises and the union — what is the process to get your union dues in excess of the fair share refunded? No word on that and it is my understanding we could do that as of March. Any interest being paid on the monies taken out?