On Friday, July 28th every faculty member of the University received their salary: some with a salary adjustment in place and some without. This salary adjustment is the result of an agreement between the University and the Faculty Association, which came as a consequence of Bill 124 being deemed unconstitutional by the Ontario Superior Court of Justice (see the memo from UWaterloo Communications, which was distributed to UW faculty on May 29th and the accompanying FAQ). In a series of blog posts we explained what Bill 124 is, as well as its wage suppressing implications. We also highlighted several successes of faculty associations across the province in negotiating a better deal with their employer. In our last blog post on Bill 124 we posed a series of lingering questions about the agreement. Now that the salary adjustment is in place, we find it important to reiterate them, adding some afterthoughts.
Updated environmental scan:
For those employed on May 1st, 2021, we were correct at predicting a 4.04% increase in base salary based on scale increase only. This results in 1%, 1%, 4.04%, which over three years accumulates to 6.13% base salary increase, excluding information on merit pay (1.01*1.01*1.0404=1.0613). As per OCUFA’s webpage with the list of recent bargaining successes, we can compare this to Queen’s (3.5%, 3%, 3% or 9.8% over 3 years), Trent (2.75, 3, 3 or 9% over 3 years), Toronto Metropolitan (1.75%, 3%, 3.5% or 8.47% over 3 years), and other institutions. The numbers speak for themselves, and as it was mentioned in our salary adjustment calculator, these discrepancies translate into significant differences in earnings over time.
Lack of retroactive payments past 2023:
In some institutions, retroactive action to mitigate the effect of Bill 124 was taken in years prior to 2023 or in early 2023. For example, Queen’s settlement is retroactive to July 1st, 2022 and at Trent to January 1st, 2023. Similar to King’s University College, in Waterloo retroactive base salary increase has been made to May 1st, 2023, so for approximately five months Bill 124 was de facto in effect even after it was deemed unconstitutional in November, 2022.
Lump sum:
The one-time lump sum payment ($2,500 for those employed on May 1st, 2021 and $1,250 for those employed on May 1st, 2022 but not on May 1st, 2021) can be seen as a way to mitigate the effect of wage suppression during the two years that Bill 124 was in effect. Of course, the main issue with this approach is that, unlike scale increase, the lump sum is not added to the base salary. Making it a part of the base salary would have been a natural action to take, since it is the base salary that was affected by Bill 124. It would have also helped to mitigate the effects of high inflation rates and brought us closer to Trent and Queen’s.
Inequities in adjustments:
Perhaps, the most serious issue of all is inequity. While this is not obvious, in reality the salary agreement discriminates not between two, but three categories of employees:
Those employed on May 1st, 2021
Those employed on May 1st, 2022 but not on May 1st, 2021
Those employed after May 1st, 2022
The scale increase for those in the second category is around 3.02%, as opposed to 4.04% for those in the first category, and their lump sum is $1,250, as opposed to $2,500. One may argue that Bill 124 was in effect for them for only one year, hence the difference in lump sums. But why should scale increases differ? In turn, those in the third category, even if they were hired several days after May 1st (yes, there are examples of that!), got neither the scale adjustment nor the lump sum. We all know that it is recent hires who have worse benefits, lower salaries and are more likely to have precarious contracts. In addition, Lecturers have lower salary thresholds. So recent hires, especially in Lecturer positions, were disproportionately affected as a result. We strongly encourage our colleagues in the third category to reach out to their department Chairs and/or to the Academic Freedom & Tenure (AF&T) Committee and inquire if they can also receive an appropriate salary adjustment. We are continuing to monitor the situation and hope that such cases can be addressed swiftly and fairly.
Another form of inequity occurs for those on parental leave, sick leave, bereavement leave, and other forms of leaves, who will not be getting their lump sum until their return to work. Asking these faculty members to wait to receive their adjustments in the current economic climate where interest rates are at a 20-year high and the cost of food has increased 9% year-to-year is unfortunate. It is all the more so when the same settlement allows retirees to immediately receive their adjustments and lump sums.
Lack of consultation:
Finally, we bring up the question that was posed in one of our previous blog posts: why was this proposal not brought for a debate or a vote by the membership? Salary is an issue that affects everyone, and in a democratic setting everyone should get their say. In a public discussion many of these issues, such as not making the lump sum a part of the base pay, various forms of inequity, as well as unclear wording of the proposal (we have seen at least three different interpretations of it), could have been noticed by the members and acted on by the negotiating team (assuming there was such a group at all).
In summary, we are still left with many questions and concerns about the “how” and “why” of the settlement negotiations. Members should, at the very least, have the opportunity to get involved and be heard in such important negotiations.
Comments