Last week, members of our Executive Committee had dinner with President Dunn and an informal discussion of a number of issues, including correcting the University’s implementation of mental health parity, threats to our university from the current political environment, the administration’s strategic plan, and our medical school faculty members.
The purpose of the meeting was not to resolve these issues, but to make President Dunn aware of our concerns and for him to bring his concerns to our attention. Nonetheless, it’s clear that we have common ground with President Dunn on number of issues, such as the need for better funding of higher education, and sharp disagreements on others.
Ten days ago, the faculty at CMU ratified their contract after a strike and under pressure from new anti-union legislation.
We’re trying to arrange a meeting between their leadership and ours to learn more about the impact of the new legislation. In the meantime, CMU’s administration has published a few details about the new contract.
With respect to salary increases, it appears that CMU faculty will receive:
2011-2012 – 0%
2012-2013 – 1.25% + $830 (average 2.25%)
2013-2014 – 1.5% + $835 (average 2.5%)
This compares to our contract:
2011-2012 – 0%
2012-2013 – 1.00% (fall semester) + 1.00% (spring semester)
2013-2014 – 1.00% (fall semester) + 1.50% (spring semester)
Among the items on the Agenda for this afternoon’s Association Council:
Status of a Joint Salary Equity Committee
Medical School Update
Recommendations for Secretary, Treasurer and Health Care Advocate
The meeting begins at 1:30 pm in Room 105 of the Bernhard Center.
Lest there be any doubt:
“Our goal is (to) outlaw government collective bargaining in Michigan, which in practical terms means no more MEA,” wrote Jack McHugh, of the Mackinac Center for Public Policy, to state Rep. Thomas McMillin, R-Rochester Hills, the newly appointed head of the House Education Committee in a June 1 email.
Not only would this mean no more MEA, it would also mean “in practical terms” no more WMU AAUP.
These are the stakes in the 2012 election.
We have submitted the following charge to the Administration for the Joint Committee to Resolve Salary Inequity:
Salary inequities are not beneficial for the public image of the university, can be detrimental to the morale of university employees and, in cases involving gender and ethnicity, may lead to costly legal action. The WMU Chapter of the AAUP and Western’s Administration both agreed on April 22, 2011 that they would promptly develop a process and strategy for addressing salary equity issues (if any). At a minimum, they agreed to consider the Sibson Consulting report (2011) and the President’s Commission on Gender Equity report (2010) as input for this process. For the purposes of WMU-AAUP bargaining unit members, this committee shall replace the role earlier performed by the President’s Commission on Gender Equity, albeit with a significantly expanded scope.
This new Joint Committee to Resolve Salary Inequity is charged with four main goals:
- Develop a plan, to be implemented and carried out during the period of the current Western-WMU-AAUP Agreement, for addressing all existing gender and ethnic salary inequities among WMU-AAUP bargaining unit members;
- Develop a plan and schedule, to be implemented by 2014, for Western to get on a clear path toward resolving existing salary compression issues, noting that in some cases such issues may represent age discrimination;
- Determine if there are WMU policies and practices that will lead to salary inequities in the future and, if found, delineate those policies and practices in a report to Western and the WMU-AAUP;
- Develop a plan, with recommendations for an implementation timeline, to minimize or eliminate the impact of such policies and practices.
There is no implication that the work of this committee could eventually eliminate the concerns of every individual faculty member with regard to his or her specific pay because individual perspectives on inequity are driven by numerous factors and because individuals do not have access to all potentially relevant information about the qualifications of their colleagues. Nonetheless, the work of the committee is intended to address individual salary inequity issues using procedures that are reasonable and fair.
It’s time for the Administration to release the data and let the committee go to work.
