| 1.1 December 1997 to December 1998 all-Canada Consumer Price Index (CPI) increase (December estimate 1.0%) | CPI |
| 1.2 Scale adjustment | 4.5% |
| TOTAL | CPI + 4.5% |
2.2 Increase of the salary floors of all ranks (and hence of the breakpoints in the Career Progress/Merit Plan) by CPI plus 4.5%.
3.2 Automatic indexing of the Professional Development Allowance to the Consumer Price Index for books and travel.
3.3 Continuation and extension of modem pool funding.
3.4 $500 annual grant for upgrading electronic office equipment (computers, etc.).
4.2 Free parking on campus, or an HSR bus pass.
4.3 Vision care coverage for dependents.
1.2 Scale adjustment: The Faculty Association offers two rationales for an additional scale adjustment of 4.5%, the first having to do with "catchup" and productivity increases, the second with comparisons to other universities.
Catchup and productivity: By the above-mentioned traditional measure of inflation, the salary scale of McMaster faculty has declined by 9.3% over the past seven years (Appendix A, Table Two). To reverse this decline would require a 10.3% scale increase, in addition to the December 1997 to December 1998 all-Canada CPI increase. For the upcoming academic year, we ask for only one third of this amount, 3.5%, as an initial step towards restoration of the real value of the salary scale to what it was eight years ago (for details of scale adjustments since 1991/92, see Appendix A).
If faculty become more productive, they should share in the social benefits of that increase in productivity through higher salaries. Although faculty productivity is hard to measure, there are several indications that McMaster faculty are more productive than they were six or seven years ago. With respect to teaching, the student-faculty ratio has increased from 22:1 in 1992/93 to 25:1 in 1997/98, an increase of 13.6% (Source: "management discussion and analysis" accompanying the audited finan-cial statements of McMaster University for the year ended April 30, 1998). The principal cause of this increase has been the fall in the size of our full-time faculty complement (outside of Health Sciences), a drop of 14.1% from 611 in 1992/93 to 525 in 1998/99 (Source: Provost's Office). Though this smaller complement of full-time faculty is having to teach an increased number of students on average, and to shoulder greater average service contributions, it continues, nevertheless, to maintain the high level of research activity for which this University is renowned. But this situation cannot continue without putting at serious risk the quality of both education and research. The Faculty Association believes that the full-time faculty complement must be increased to something like its former level. In the meantime, the Association proposes that a scale (ATB) increase of 1% be awarded next year as a first step to compensating the existing faculty for their increased productivity.
Comparisons with other universities: Recent scale increases for McMaster faculty have lagged behind those at other Ontario research-intensive universities in Ontario, as the following table shows.
| Year | McMaster | Guelph | Queen's | Toronto | Waterloo | Western |
| 1994/95 | -0.5% | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 1995/96 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| 1996/97 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0.75% |
| 1997/98 | 0 | 0.6% | 0.9% | 0.5% | 1.0% | 0 |
| 1998/99 | 1.0%* | 0.6% | 0.9% | 1.5% | 1.0% | n.a. |
| cumulative | 0.5% | 1.2% | 1.8% | 2.0% | 2.0% | n.a. |
Source: Ontario Confederation of University Faculty Associations, "Summary of Social Contract Local Agreements -- January 26, 1996"
and "All Monetary Changes: Summary of Settlements 1996/97, 1997/98, 1998/99".
*Since the scale increase for McMaster faculty only takes effect on May 1, 1999, its effect on salaries for the academic year 1998/99 will
be only one-sixth of the same scale increase at another university which took effect in the usual fashion on July 1, 1998.
The same picture emerges when one compares the salaries of McMaster faculty to those of Canadian
research-intensive universities outside Ontario. It worsens when comparisons are made with faculty
salaries at the leading publicly supported universities in the United States, with whom McMaster must
compete in recruiting the very best faculty. To achieve purchasing power parity with faculty salaries at
the top 20 US publicly supported universities, as rated by US News and World Report, McMaster faculty
would need a scale increase of at least 11%.[The mean salary of McMaster faculty (outside of Health Sciences) in the CP/M Plan was $79,725 as of June 1998, according to data supplied by the
McMaster administration. The mean salary of faculty at the 20 leading US publicly supported universities had an estimated purchasing power
equivalent of at least CAN $90,814 in 1997/98. US salary data are taken from American Association of University Professors, Academe,
March/April 1998. Purchasing Power Parity rate is CAN $1 = .8264 US, from OECD Online (website). US salary data are for a nine-month
academic year. The above estimate assumes conservatively that on average faculty at these universities earn the equivalent of an extra month's salary
during the remaining three months of the year and uses a purchasing power conversion rate rather than the exchange rate; less conservative
assumptions would produce a wider salary gap. The gap is widest among assistant professors and full professors.]
The scale adjustment of 4.5% discussed in the preceding section is an essential step toward closing the
growing gap between McMaster salaries and those of comparable institutions.
The salary increases awarded to McMaster faculty should not only be comparable to those awarded to
faculty at similar universities in Ontario, Canada and North America. They should also be comparable to
those awarded to Ontario community college teachers, to Ontario school teachers, and to salary
settlements in the Ontario public and private sectors generally. University professors' salaries cannot be
expected to sink together against the rest of the economy. Although the Faculty Association has not yet
done a full comparison in those other respects, preliminary data reveal the same picture of a significant
relative decline in recent years. This decline needs to be stopped, and reversed.
2.2 Increase in the floors for all ranks: The CP/M Plan provides that all salary floors, the values of par
increments, and the breakpoints in the plan be increased annually by the scale (ATB) increase.
3.2 Indexing of the Professional Development Allowance: Automatic indexation of the Professional
Development Allowance (PDA) by the inflation rate for books and travel was the second choice for benefit
improvements in the above-mentioned survey. Such automatic indexation would ensure that the value of
the PDA keeps up with those items it is most commonly used to purchase, and would remove this item from
future negotiations.
3.3 Continuation and extension of modem pool funding: In earlier remuneration settlements, the
Faculty Association negotiated limited access to the Enhanced (self-funding) Modem Pool. The Association
maintained, and continues to maintain, that having access from home to e-mail and the Internet is an
essential feature of the conditions of faculty employment, and that such access should be provided free.
But the administration, with its insistence upon the need for a user fee, would only agree to a sum of
$20,000 a year as a subsidy towards the cost of access. This has allowed for an arrangement whereby
each CP/M faculty member's use has been subsidized to the level of at least $100 for the current year.
The Association proposes that this subsidy level be maintained next year at least at the $100 level per CP/M
faculty member.
Some CP/M faculty members now use the cable system to access the McMaster network, or use different
Internet Service Providers than McMaster to provide access to the McMaster system and the Internet. The
Faculty Association believes that the $100 allowance should be provided to them and proposes that a
suitable reimbursement scheme be devised to allow for this. The University should be prepared to meet
any additional costs associated with this extension of the subsidy scheme.
3.4 $500 annual grant for upgrading electronic office equipment: In addition to regular professional
expenses such as book purchases, journal subscriptions, conference attendance and learned society
memberships, faculty members must periodically upgrade the equipment, such as computers and
software, which they use in their teaching and service; in fact, the Assistant Vice-President for Information
Services and Technology reported recently that one-third of McMaster's computers turn over each year. A
grant for upgrading electronic office equipment was the third choice of respondents to the 1998
remuneration survey. Such a grant already exists in the Faculty of Business in the form of a $1,500 grant
every three years to one-third of the faculty. The Association proposes that this grant be extended to all
CP/M faculty members.
4.2 Free parking on campus, or an HSR bus pass: Free parking at one's place of employment is a non-taxable benefit, taken for granted by many professionals. The Association combines this proposed benefit
improvement with an HSR bus pass, analogous to that provided to McMaster students, in order to provide
an equivalent benefit to Association members who use public transportation in preference to a private
automobile, and in order not to encourage over-use of parking. Free on-campus parking, or an HSR bus
pass was the fourth choice of benefit improvement by the 1998 remuneration survey respondents.
4.3 Vision care coverage for dependents: Recently the Faculty Association agreed to a reduction in the
University's contribution to the dental plan in exchange for some improvements elsewhere in that plan and
in devices. During the same round of negotiations, non-academic staff exchanged a similar reduction in the
University's dental plan contribution for extending vision care to dependents. This fall the University agreed
to extend to non-academic staff all the benefit improvements for which the Faculty Association exchanged
the reduced contribution to the dental plan. The Association therefore maintains that the University should
now extend to faculty the benefit of vision care for dependents, while equalizing the reduction in the
University's contribution to the dental plan.
The Association has agreed to participate in talks about pensions, the pension surplus and pension
improvements outside normal negotiations so as to allow all pension plan members to participate in the
discussions. Therefore no other proposals regarding pensions or use of the pension surplus are included in
this brief.
The result of this shortfall has been an erosion in the relative position of McMaster faculty salaries. The
complexity of the last remuneration settlement for McMaster faculty, with its one-time payments, unpaid
days, delayed CP/M awards and delayed scale adjustment, makes it difficult to make precise
comparisons. But the general picture is that, when controlled for age group and rank, McMaster faculty
salaries are below the mean of faculty salaries at the other five research-intensive universities in
Ontario. They are well behind salaries at the University of Waterloo and the University of Toronto, to
which we have traditionally compared ourselves. The shortfall is highest among McMaster's assistant
professors aged 35-39 and its associate professors aged 40-44; for example, as of October 1997 the
mean salary of a non-medical-dental assistant professor aged 35-39 was $52,075 at McMaster,
$57,074 at Waterloo, and $61,242 at Toronto (Source: Statistics Canada, Average Faculty Salaries by
Age and Rank in current dollars, 1997/98, non-medical-dental faculty without senior administrative
duties).
2. CAREER PROGRESS/MERIT (CP/M)
2.1 Full implementation of the CP/M Plan: The Faculty Career Progress/Merit Plan provides that faculty
members' salaries increase each year according to their perceived merit, measured in "par units". In recent
years the agreement has been for 120 par increments for every 100 faculty. The Association proposes the
same for 1999/2000.3. RESEARCH AND TEACHING SUPPORT
3.1 Full salary during all research leaves: Expenses do not go down during a research leave; in fact,
they often go up. In a remuneration survey in November 1998, with a high (36.6%) response rate,
increasing the research leave stipend to 100% of salary was the first choice for benefit improvements.4. PRE-RETIREMENT BENEFIT IMPROVEMENTS
4.1 Revision of the Major Medical Plan: Faculty members who are absent from Canada for more than six
months at a time run the risk, under current Ministry of Health regulations, of losing their OHIP coverage if
they have too many such absences. There are competing interpretations within the Ministry of how many is
too many; some officials say more than two, some say absences totalling more than two years. Some
Ontario university faculty members absent from Canada on extended research leave have already lost
OHIP coverage for this reason. In addition to losing OHIP coverage while they are outside Canada, such
faculty members will have no OHIP coverage for the first three months after they return to Canada. Under
the present provisions of McMaster's Major Medical Plan, McMaster faculty members who are
disadvantaged by the new regulations will lose their coverage under the Major Medical Plan because they
are no longer covered by OHIP. They should retain this coverage. In addition, they should be covered for
the expenses which OHIP would pay if they were covered by OHIP. It is not fair to put the burden of funding
such coverage on individual faculty members whose research happens to require them to leave Canada;
without coverage, such faculty members could face catastrophically large expenses. The Association
therefore proposes an immediate revision to the Major Medical Plan to address this problem.5. PENSION IMPROVEMENTS
5.1 Capping employee pension contributions: The McMaster Pension Plan as of September 1998 had a
surplus of $227.0 million above the conservatively estimated liabilities of $580.5 million. This surplus is
about 10 times the threshold above which the employer is forbidden by law to contribute to a pension plan.
In fact, the University has enjoyed a full pension contribution holiday for several years. In such a situation,
there is no reason for McMaster faculty, and other University employees, to make contributions to the
Pension Plan. Such contributions only add to the surplus; they do not contribute to the member's defined
benefit from the Plan, which is more than adequately funded already. The Faculty Association therefore
proposes a permanent change in the contribution formula, which would limit the employee's contribution in
any given year to no more than the employer's contribution. The termination benefit, however, should be
adjusted each July 1 to maintain the value it would have had if the employee had been making 100%
contributions, with no pension holiday.
In March of 1991, MUFA and the administration reached a three-year agreement for the years 1991/92, 1992/93 and 1993/94 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 each July 1 equal to the December to December CPI in the preceding 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 faculty should have received in July 1992 was deferred to July 1993, when an ATB increase of 2.75% was to be 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, the University was forced to suspend the July 1993 ATB increases, including the deferred payments from 1992. Under the Social Contract, CP/M faculty at McMaster received no scale increases in July 1993 and July 1995 and a 0.5% decrease in July 1994 (accepted by ballot in exchange for 30 par units in the CP/M plan in July 1994). Furthermore, the Association 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, which were allocated in July 1993 and July 1994. There were no CP/M awards in July 1995.
Coming out of the Social Contract in April 1996 did little to improve the situation. The Association attempted in Fall 1995 to negotiate a transitional arrangement for April to June 1996 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 (which would normally have been paid in July 1995) might be lost, and stated 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 (at 55 par units per 100 faculty members) and the 1995 awards (at 80 par units per 100 faculty members). To achieve even this partial payment of CP/M awards, MUFA agreed to a temporary scale reduction of 1.2% equivalent to three unpaid teaching days in 1996/97. Thus, in 1996/97 the nominal salaries of many faculty members increased while their real salaries went down.
In the most recent negotiations, which culminated in a two-year settlement covering the period from July 1, 1997 to June 30, 1999, MUFA finally secured restoration of the rest of the 1994 and 1995 merit awards. But this restoration is to occur only on January 1, 1999. Thus, there has been a period of 3 years in the case of the 1994 merit awards during which faculty members did not have in their base salary the merit increment they deserved, and a period of 2 years in the case of the 1995 merit awards. The amount of foregone income is substantial. Further, as a concession to the University's alleged budgetary difficulties, the Faculty Association agreed again to a temporary scale reduction in 1997/98 of 0.8%, equivalent to two unpaid days, a scale reduction only partially balanced by a one-time payment effective July 1, 1997, equal to 0.5% of 1996/97 salary. In 1998/99 faculty again received a one-time payment of 0.5% of the previous year's salary effective July 1, 1998; a scale increase equal to 1% of 1997/98 salary is to come into effect only on May 1, 1999, at the start of the 1999/2000 fiscal year.
As Table Two shows, the salary scale of McMaster faculty has been eroded by inflation over the past seven years. For several years, the partial funding of CP/M distorted the salary profile used in our CP/M model. Restoration of unpaid CP/M has been obtained at the cost of a steady deterioration of the real value of the salary scale of McMaster faculty. These historical considerations provide the basis of the MUFA position in the 1999/2000 remuneration brief.
| Year | Inflation Rate for ATB Calculation | Actual ATB Paid at McMaster* | Cumulative Decrease in Real Salaries (compounded) | CP/M Paid at McMaster (par units per 100 faculty) |
Notes:
* Figures in this column do not include one-time salary cuts in the form of unpaid days, or one-time payments.
** Payment of the second portion of 1994 and 1995 merit (85 of 110 par units) will commence on January 1, 1999.
*** Scale increase of 1% on May 1, 1999.