Salary Equity
Lecturers do not receive the same salaries as other professorial faculty ranks. Both salary floors and thresholds differ, resulting in a significant difference in relative and total career earnings.
​
What are Salary Floors and Thresholds and How do they Work?
Salary floors are the minimum salary for a faculty member at a particular rank.
​
Salary thresholds reduce the rate of increase of a faculty member’s salary over time. In principle, this means that more of the yearly salary increase is allocated to faculty members with lower pay.
​
Each regular faculty member receives a performance rating R on a scale from 0 to 2 (i.e., a merit score). This performance rating is then adjusted (or not) according to the following rules:
-
If the member’s salary is below T1, then no adjustment is made.
-
If the member’s salary is between T1 and T2, then 0.75 is subtracted from their performance rating (without reducing their score below zero).
-
If the member’s salary is above T2, then 1.25 is subtracted from their performance rating (without reducing their score below zero).
For fiscal year 2022-2023, the floors and thresholds are set as follows:
​
​
​
​
​
Rank | Floor | Threshold T1 | Threshold T2 |
|---|---|---|---|
Professor | $136,785 | $187,105 | $226,084 |
Associate Professor | $107,368 | $187,105 | $226,084 |
Assistant Professor | $85,307 | $187,105 | $226,084 |
Clinical Lecturer | $85,307 | $175,419 | $214,399 |
Lecturer | $66,187 | $157,845 | $196,824 |
In 2019, a Working Group on Salary Structure with representatives from the Faculty Association and the University recommended adjustments to the floor and threshold values for lecturers. Although one of the options being considered was having equal thresholds among all faculty members (lecturers and professors), the group ultimately recommended the adoption of a parallel lines model, meaning that lecturers and professors would take roughly the same amount of time to cross their respective thresholds. The full report is available to read online.
The Big Picture
​
The fiscal year for the university begins on May 1. Any changes to salary will take effect as of that date. Several elements combine to determine one’s annual increase. Here, we provide an overview; additional details are included in the salary details page.
​​
-
SCALE INCREASE: A percentage of the previous year’s salary. The exact percentage is negotiated during compensation negotiations. Due to Bill 124, scale increases are capped at 1% until 2023.
-
MERIT INCREASE: A lump sum that is calculated based on your merit score, your salary threshold, and the amount of funds available in the Selective Increase Pool in your faculty.
-
OUTSTANDING PERFORMANCE AWARD: OPA winners get a special salary increase equal to one Selective Increase Unit.
-
OTHER ADJUSTMENTS: Some individuals may also receive other adjustments such as anomaly adjustments.
Your new salary is calculated as:
​
Previous Salary + (Previous salary)*Scale + Merit + OPA + Adjustments
Salary Tools & Details
Salary Anomaly Reviews
A Brief History of Salary Anomaly Reviews at UW
As a result of a salary settlement negotiated between the Faculty Association and the university, a Salary Anomaly Working Group (SAWG) was created in 2015. The working group was tasked to establish a university-wide process for identifying and resolving salary anomalies by investigating faculty salary inequities, reviewing the process of identifying salary anomalies, and making recommendations on how to resolve these inequities. The 2015 SAWG recommended, and it was agreed by the Faculty Association and the University, to conduct an anomaly review exercise every five years, starting in September 2020. To date, two salary anomaly exercises have been conducted: the original 2015 review, and another in 2020.
The 2015 review serves as a baseline, with subsequent reviews using an equivalent regression model unless both parties agree to a change in methodology. A linear regression model was constructed based on individual data of full-time and part-time faculty members as of May 1 of the analysis year. The data were used to build a model which included several factors to explain/predict one’s salary. The factors included in both models are:
-
Average merit score. The 2015 model used the average out of all available years and the 2020 model used the average of the previous seven years.
-
Lag of years between highest degree and year of hire
-
Years since hire at UW
-
Years since hire at UW squared
-
Number of previous Outstanding Performance Awards
-
Highest degree
-
Current rank
-
Academic group (roughly aligned by faculty, with some departmental exceptions)
-
Rank at hire
-
Interaction between academic group and current rank
-
Interaction between lag and rank at hire
A coefficient was generated for each factor, representing the monetary value of each factor. The resulting regression model was used to identify salary anomalies.
The SAWG also separately considered gender as a factor. Having adjusted the salaries identified by the first regression models, gender was then added as a factor. The value of the gender coefficient would therefore determine, all other factors being equal, the expected salary difference between men and women faculty members. In 2015, the value of the gender coefficient was $2904.59 in favour of men. This was deemed to be significant and resulted in a faculty-wide salary adjustment of $3000 for all women faculty members. In 2020, the gender coefficient was $147, which was not deemed significant and resulted in no university-wide adjustment.
The 2015 Report and 2020 Report are both available to read online.
Lecturer-Specfic Concerns
Why should Lecturers care?
Examining the trends from the 2015 to the 2020 analysis, there are particular concerns when it comes to teaching faculty. The 2020 report states that: “One third of all cases for which a salary anomaly correction is recommended concern lecturer appointments. The Working Group recommends that the VPAP examine closely the practices around the determination of these salaries, with the purpose of ensuring equity across campus for those hired into this rank.” (2020 Report, page 5). This is particularly concerning since Lecturers make up roughly 20% of faculty members; there is an overrepresentation of Lecturers in both true anomalies (31.3%) and total (potential+true) anomalies (42.7%). The proportion of Lecturers as anomalies had a steep increase since 2015, when lecturers comprised 16.95% of true anomalies and 14.1% of total anomalies.
The report also mentions that 35 potential anomalies are “early career” individuals: “mainly recent hires - for whom just one or two merit scores are available”. Coupled with the above, this suggests that early career Lecturers may be particularly vulnerable and may be offered starting salaries that are too low.
Concerns with the Model and Reports
As the saying goes, all models are wrong, but some models are useful. It’s critical to reflect on the strengths and weaknesses of any model and of the university’s general approach to salary equity adjustments.
The following concerns have been raised with respect to the linear regression model:
The SAWG reports are a good starting point for discussion about salary equity, however, there remain important gaps around transparency and accountability:
​
-
For years during which there is no analysis, salary adjustments are determined on a case-by-case basis by each faculty Dean. There is little transparency about how the Deans determine how to allocate their anomaly funds.
-
For analysis years, some faculty members are deemed to be “potential anomalies” due either to an insufficient number of merit scores or to because their salaries exceeded the thresholds of the faculty salary structure. In such cases, the Deans have no obligation to contact these faculty members to appraise them of their situation and offer a path forward.
-
There is no follow up on the adjustments over time. How many of the potential anomalies were addressed? How many were not? For anomalies left unaddressed, what is the plan moving forward?
