In undertaking to prepare the 1997/98 Remunerations Brief, the Remunerations Committee has sought broad participation in trying to determine appropriate proposals that are both fiscally responsible and meet the needs of the members of the McMaster University Faculty Association (MUFA). Current faculty members at all levels and across all Faculties are suffering from demoralization and frustration. The decline in faculty morale over the past five years has been compounded by the less than full reward for their efforts in reduced Career Progress/Merit (CP/M) awards for 1994 and 1995, in the settlement for 1996/97 as well as by the four-year freeze on scale increases. Their frustration is exacerbated by increasing workloads in the face of declining instructional and research resources. Faculty members are expected to deliver excellence and innovation þ quality research, teaching and service þ yet, their work does not appear to be valued highly when it comes to their remuneration.

A university is, above all, a social institution designed for the creation, preservation and transmission of knowledge. In this sense, faculty are the principal "knowledge workers" for the institution who contribute to and create the value for the university by producing research and by sharing their knowledge and ability to create knowledge with students. Indeed, the major assets of McMaster University are its faculty members and those faculty need to be valued and compensated appropriately.

Faculty members at McMaster have become more productive by necessity. Given the decline in the overall faculty complement and the (approximately) steady state of student enrolment, student/faculty ratios have been increasing over the past five years. Instructional support in the form of teaching assistants and staff has also declined. To maintain their research agendas, faculty members are being called on to contribute more of their own funds to upgrade computer equipment and to pay for basic research expenses. In spite of these added burdens, instructional excellence and research output have continued. But many faculty members feel helpless and undervalued and some have expressed anger at what appears to be the University's indifference to their problems.

If we look at the structure of University funding, we note that the bulk of our monies comes in the form of provincial grants and tuition fees. In a large sense these two revenue sources arise from the presence of faculty members at the University since it is the faculty who undertake to fulfil the primary missions of the University, to teach, to do research and to provide service to the community. Political arguments that faculty salaries are too high or comprise too large a portion of the University budget ignore faculty members' overall contribution to the educational enterprise. While we accept the need for an administrative support infrastructure, at the same time we, as faculty members, want to be recognized for the value that we bring to the institution.

SCALE INCREASE

responding ranked CP/M as one of their priorities versus 71% for ATB. Not only do faculty view CP/M as important, but they also perceive a scale increase as important to adjust for current inflation. In view of this, the McMaster University Faculty Association proposes an ATB increase equal to the December 1995 - December 1996 all Canada CPI (the traditional frame of reference for McMaster negotiations). While many faculty members indicated that a catchup of ATB equal to the cumulative decrease in real salaries to 1995 (approximately 6.5%) was also justified, the Remunerations Committee believes that in the current fiscal situation restoring the lost CP/M is more appropriate.

A current scale adjustment to faculty salaries is both reasonable and necessary. While current inflation as measured by the All-Canada CPI is running under 2%, it must be noted that faculty members have not had a scale increase since July 1, 1992 and, in fact, chose to forego 0.5% of scale in 1994/95 so that they could receive 11/12 of a normal CP/M award. Real faculty salaries have declined 7.6% since 1991 (Appendix 1) which represents a significant loss of purchasing power for our members. MUFA has moderated its requests in that we do not propose an adjustment for past scale losses at this time. We believe, however, that an across-the-board increase for 1997/98 would at least provide partial relief for the deterioration of our real salaries.

CP/M AWARDS

To rectify these problems, the McMaster University Faculty Association proposes that the following four adjustments be included in the 1997/98 salary agreement:

1. To make up for lost 1994 merit award payments: For 1994 performance there will be 110 par units per 100 faculty members. The value of each par unit will be equal to 55/110 of a normal par value.

2. To make up for lost 1995 merit award payments: For 1995 performance there will be 110 par units per 100 faculty members. The value of each par unit will be equal to 30/110 of a normal value.

3. For 1996 performance there will be 120 par units per 100 faculty members. The value of each par unit will be equal to 120/120 of a normal par value.

4. The break points of the CP/M profile will be adjusted for the total change in the CPI that has occurred since their last adjustment, and the CP/M awards (July 1, 1992) per break point interval adjusted for inflation over the same period.

Proposals 1 and 2 attempt to deal with the merit faculty members have lost over the last two years. Restoring this component will go a long way towards renewing faculty members' confidence in the CP/M system. Proposal 3 suggests that the merit award should return to its normal, pre-Social Contract level of 120 par units and should be fully paid to provide a tangible acknowledgement of faculty members' value to the institution.

Our fourth proposal, to adjust the breakpoints of the CP/M profile for the change in the CPI that has occurred since they were last adjusted, tries to bring the CP/M profile up-to-date. This has a positive effect on members of the CP/M plan because it increases their time between breakpoints, allowing junior faculty a longer time to receive full CP/M awards. Since breakpoints and CP/M awards are normally adjusted annually by the percentage scale increase and there have been no scale increases in the last four years, some faculty will be disadvantaged by reaching breakpoints sooner than they would have under normal circumstances. Besides adjusting the breakpoints, the CP/M awards should also be adjusted for inflation so that faculty members receive the real value of their merit. It should be noted that, while MUFA is not requesting an adjustment for past scale losses on our regular salaries at this time, the proposal to bring CP/M par values up to date is not only justifiable, but affordable.

MUFA suggests that the CP/M awards for 1996 and the remainder of the awards for 1994 and 1995 be calculated according to the following sequence:

1. Awards for 1994 and 1995 would be based on the CP/M scheme in effect when the partial awards were made.

2. Awards for 1996 would be based on the adjusted CP/M profile and award calculation proposed above.

RESEARCH AND SERVICE

1. that research leave salaries after the first research leave be increased from 85% to 90%;

2. that the Professional Development Allowance be increased from $1,159 to $1,500;

3. that a research allowance be established to provide funds for equipment and seed money for research proposals in the amount of $2,500 per faculty member once every five years.

Currently research leave salaries after the first research leave are funded at only 85% of full salary. This may be dysfunctional in that some faculty may be currently choosing a six-month leave solely on the basis of monetary requirements rather than the need for release time to accomplish research objectives. An increase of the research leave salary to 90% of salary may be sufficient to encourage some faculty to take full year leaves with the return to the institution of an overall increase in research productivity.

Proposals 2 and 3, increasing the PDA and creating a research allowance, are both targeted at improving the research environment for faculty members. Because of the decrease in external research grants and the increased call on faculty members to support their own equipment replacements and provision of supplies (for both research and teaching), some way must be found to provide faculty with the funds necessary for them to carry out the requirements of their employment. For many faculty the PDA provides the means to communicate with their peers by allowing them to subscribe to journals in their discipline, to join academic associations, and to attend conferences. Increasing the amount of the PDA recognizes this expansion of faculty responsibilities and lessens the burden on their after-tax discretionary income. The idea behind proposal 3 is to provide tangible support for research initiatives which are part of the broad academic role of the institution. The Faculty Association recognizes that we have a broader academic mission than simply a concern for faculty compensation. In this light we believe that the institution of a research allowance that would be used for seed grants and/or computer replacement for which a faculty member could apply once every five years could provide some cushion against the current shortfall in external research grants. Provision of funds for equipment and research start-ups would help faculty members to obtain additional outside funding from granting agencies and even, perhaps, from industry. Our outside research funding partners would appreciate and value this University contribution to our work, a contribution which reinforces the seriousness of our research proposals and improves their credibility. These funds could also provide the basis for matching external grants and support the ongoing research mission of the University.

MUFA has considered one possible way in which such a research allowance could be administered. For the first year of the allowance, all eligible regular faculty members could apply and some mechanism would need to be defined to make the awards. In the second year, only those faculty who did not receive grants in Year 1 would be eligible to apply, and so on, until by Year 5 all faculty would have received a research allowance. The following five-year cycles would simply follow the sequence of the first. Of course, new faculty who receive start-up funds for equipment and research upon arrival would not be eligible for these research benefits until they had been at McMaster for five years. We believe that this five-year cycle represents a modest way to ensure that faculty members have funds to upgrade computer equipment and to perform their research duties. Furthermore, we contend that such funds will help to sustain McMaster's reputation for innovation in achieving research excellence.

BENEFITS

Another concern arises in relation to insurance coverage for those faculty who choose to retire early. The Faculty Association suggests that early retirees be allowed to continue to participate in McMaster's Group Life Insurance Plan until they reach normal retirement age. Many of these faculty have major financial commitments which would have to be met in the eventuality of their death. Furthermore, the cost of acquiring individual life insurance comparable to McMaster's plan in the marketplace could be prohibitive for these individuals because of age. Therefore, we believe that the extension of group life insurance to early retirees would remove one of the disincentives for faculty trying to decide whether to take advantage of the "Rule of 80".

Finally, we believe that there is still a problem with the way in which the University treats spouses and dependent children of those faculty members who die while actively employed by the University. The Faculty Association suggests that spousal and family medical and dental benefits be continued for one year after the faculty member's death at no charge. Furthermore, we propose that after the first year, the spouse and dependent children of the deceased faculty member be offered the option to continue in the University health plans at a price equal to the group rates of the plan. Our first proposal extends the current period (six months) of benefits offered to spouses and dependent children of deceased faculty and the second removes their need to search for outside providers of the health benefits. We believe that both proposals offer a compassionate alternative to the current situation.

The Association assumes that discussions about other benefits will continue in tandem with remuneration negotiations under the auspices of the Ad Hoc Benefits Committee of the Joint Committee.

2. Pensions
The Association recognizes that there are a number of problems with our Pension Plan, namely that the pension surplus continues to grow and that the University continues to take pension holidays, making our Plan (and the increased surplus) 100% employee funded. The Association is sympathetic with the adminstration's desire (voiced in Directions II) to use part of our pension surplus to pay off the bridging costs of the early retirements in 1996 and 1997 so as to free up operating funds for faculty renewal. Association members want to see faculty renewal, but they also feel that part of the pension surplus should be used for pension improvements. The Association has agreed to participate in talks about pensions, the pension surplus, and pension improvements outside normal negotiations so as to allow all plan members to participate in the discussions. Therefore no other proposals regarding the pension improvements are included in this brief.

SUMMARY OF PROPOSALS

Scale Increase (Across-the-Board)
1. Faculty salaries shall be increased by an amount equal to the December 1995 to December 1996 All Canada CPI.

Career Progress/Merit
2. For 1994 performance there will be 110 par units per 100 faculty members. The value of each par unit will be 55/110 of a normal par unit.

3. For 1995 performance there will be 110 par units per 100 faculty members. The value of each par unit will be equal to 30/110 of a normal par value.

4. For 1996 performance there will be 120 par units per 100 faculty members. The value of each par unit will be 120/120 of a normal par unit.

5. The break points of the CP/M profile will be adjusted for the total change in the CPI that has occurred since the last adjustment, and the CP/M awards for each breakpoint interval adjusted for inflation over the same period.

Research and Service
6. Research leave salaries after the first research leave shall be increased from 85 to 90%.

7. The Professional Development Allowance shall be increased from $1,159 to $1500.

8. A research allowance shall be established to provide funds for equipment and seed money for research proposals in the amount of $2,500 per faculty members once every five years.

Benefits
9. The Maternity Leave Policy shall be revised to meet legal requirements.

10. Faculty who take early retirement under the Rule of 80 shall be eligible to continue their participation in the McMaster Group Life Insurance Plan until they reach normal retirement age (65).

11. Spouses and dependent children of faculty members who die while still actively employed by the University shall have their medical and dental benefits continued for one year after the faculty member's death. Furthermore, at the expiration of the initial year, spouses and dependent children shall be offered the option to continue to participate in McMaster's health plans at a price equal to the group rate of the plan.

The McMaster University faculty salary settlements have been bleak for the past five years. The last time we received a full scale adjustment for the cost of living increase was in our 1991/92 salary agreement. Since then our across-the- board adjustments have either been partial, negative or non-existent.

Looking backward, we note that in March of 1991, MUFA and the administration reached a three-year agreement for the years 1991, 1992 and 1993 which provided for CP/M payments in each of the three years based on 120 par units per 100 faculty members. It also provided for ATB payments equal to the December to December CPI in each year. Only the first year of this agreement was implemented in full before the agreement was reopened in April, 1992. The originally agreed to ATB increase of 3.8% was reduced to 2.0% for 1992 and the remaining 1.8% of the increase we should have received in 1992 was deferred to 1993 when ATB increases of 2.75% were to have been made. MUFA's willingness to defer ATB increases to help the University's budget situation proved very costly. As a result of Social Contract legislation, we were forced to suspend 1993 ATB increases, including the deferred payments from 1992. Under the Social Contract, we received no scale increases in 1993 and 1995 and a 0.5% decrease in 1994. Furthermore, we conceded to reduce the number of par units used to calculate CP/M payments from their normal level of 120 par units per 100 faculty members to 110 par units per 100 faculty members.

Coming out of the Social Contract in April 1996 did little to improve the situation. We attempted to negotiate a transitional arrangement in Fall, 1995 to restore lost CP/M which the administration countered with a proposal for a total compensation freeze. Because of the incompatibility of our respective positions, we were forced to pursue Final Offer Selection. Although they failed to choose MUFA's position, the Selectors did acknowledge a real concern that the merit awards due for 1994 might be lost and that future agreements might take this into account. The salary agreement reached in March, 1996 made some headway towards restoring the 1994 merit awards, but only partially funded them and the 1995 awards. To achieve this, MUFA agreed to a temporary scale reduction of 1.2% equivalent to three unpaid teaching days in 1996/97. thus, in 1996/97 many faculty's salaries increased on paper, but decreased in reality.

As Table 1 shows, real faculty salaries have been eroded by inflation over the past five years and CP/M, having only been partially funded, has distorted the salary profile used in our CP/M model. These historical considerations provided the basis of the MUFA position in the 1997/98 remunerations brief.