Sorry for the premature send.
There isn't much of a distinction between 99% of members under review and 99% of members who received a step increase because very few people received 0 step increases. I suspect that even members who weren't under review this year received the salary step they were assigned last round, so it probably is 99% of members.
The difference between 1 and 1.5 steps does not seem trivial to me (>$500/ year for the rest of your time at SFU, almost $1000 if you are below the breakpoint, increasing with general wage increases).
During contract negotiations, SFUFA did a survey regarding our salary system, and had at least one general meeting about it, and I don't recall concern about the workload associated with our salary step system. I can dig out survey results later if anyone is interested. Certainly there was not much appetite for everyone getting the same increase (I.e., no merit steps), so someone has to decide who gets a bigger step.
Julian
Hi There isn't much of a distinction between 99% of members and 99% of members who received Agreed. JDF
From: "Andrew von Nordenflycht" < vonetc@sfu.ca> To: "JD Fleming" < jfleming@sfu.ca> Sent: Saturday, 26 August, 2017 10:26:55 Subject: Re: (SFUFA) Step award values for 2017 Hi I wonder if there is ambiguity in Brian's sentence regarding "99% receiving increases". I read that to mean that of the people that received a step increase, 99% got paid for them instead of getting $0 bc of hard caps, etc. Not that 99% of all those under salary review got step increases. Perhaps asking Brian for a clarification would help. That said, I still understand your point about a potential need for reconsidering the salary review process regarding whether the amount of input required outweighs the marginal distinctions that ultimately result. Andrew I have suffered under the hard ceiling myself, Ronda. I believe I actually do grasp how it works. Evidently, I misinterpreted that part of your comment. Which, however, was remote from the issue I tried to raise. So perhaps this is an opportunity for me to re-raise it: Is there a basis, or possibility, for reconsidering the TPC step-award process? If, in fact, it now makes even less difference than it ever did? A real question: which is to say, one to which I do not know the answer. JD Fleming English
James, If you think a member earning a 1.5 could not get $0 in raise, you don't understand how the hard ceiling works. I didn't say I would have gotten a 0 in merit steps; I said I would have gotten $0 in raise for my hard-earned 1.5. Ronda
Sent from my iPad Ronda, I read and referred to Brian Green's message ("the below"), which states: " This year, though the value per step has decreased, over 99 percent of members will see step increases paid to them."
I don't see any suggestion in his message that this result is anomalous. Rather, the suggestion seems to be that this result means the new system is working properly, and we should feel good about it. And perhaps that's right.
But if step increases are now to be asymptotic to universal, then they are, as I said, effectively automatic.
Which was the starting-point for my constructive suggestion about the merit review process.
yrs jdf
ps i have served on TPC back to when it was still DTC. In my experience, a member who earned a 1.5 would absolutely never have gotten a zero--or even a .5. Ne-ver. The wiggle was all between 1.5s and 1s.
Merit steps have not become automatic increases. I honestly don't know how you could have read the Collective Agreement and come to that conclusion, James.
I worked hard for the 1.5 merit step I earned on my last salary review. I'm very pleased to be getting a, roughly, $3000 raise in September. If we were on the old system my raise would have been a big fat $0.
Ronda Arab
Sent from my iPad
I take it from the below that "merit" steps have, in effect, become automatic increases. A trade-off for the shrinking of each discrete step. (Redistribution.) My 1.75 bits: The merit review process was already out of whack with its output. That is: significant busywork for both the faculty member under review, and the TPC doing the reviewing--without much at stake. In my department, at least, most members of the under-review cohort would get, in the end, either a 1 or a 1.5. (The .5 difference always reminds me of Henry Kissinger's remark about why academic politics are so intense.) If the stakes have now become even smaller, is it time to reconsider the process? JD Fleming English
Dear SFUFA members:
Step values for this year's salary increments have now been calculated. As negotiated in the last round of collective bargaining, we have moved from a system of fixed step values to a floating system based on salary mass. In the last two scales of the old system, a step was valued at $2799.59 (July 1, 2016) and $2745.72 (September 1, 2013), but ceilings and various limits in the salary system meant that between 250 and 350 members actually received no salary increases associated with their step awards. Total monies paid to faculty through the step system ranged from $1.5 million to $1.9 million. The Regular Step Award (RSA) value for September 1, 2017 is $1988.59 per step (below the breakpoint of each rank). The Modified Step Award (MSA), calculated as 0.6 * RSA is $1193.15 per step (above the breakpoint of each rank). Promotion steps are valued at $2546.25 (tenure track), $2387.11 (teaching track) and $2227.97 (Librarian/Archivists), representing 1/32nd of the Floor of Assistant, Lecturer and Librarian/Archivist 2 ranks respectively. These individual step amounts are lower than in previous years ($2799.59 for all ranks in 2016), but in fact amount to a significant increase in the total dollars paid to SFUFA members, and a much wider distribution of steps than was previously the case. As the value of the floors for these ranks increases in coming years, so too will the dollar value of a step awarded upon promotion.
This year, though the value per step has decreased, over 99 percent of members will see step increases paid to them, and the total value of increments paid out is over $3 million which is a significant increase from the last few years where many people were at hard ceilings.
Nine of the ten days in your next pay will be based on the pre- September 1 salary. The full impact of your step increases will appear on the September 15 paystub. Should you have any questions or concerns about your increase after that time, please contact Karim Dossa in Faculty Relations ( dossa@sfu.ca). Salary letters reflecting these increases are anticipated to be made available in mid to late October.
Brian Green, SFUFA Doug Thorpe Dorward, Faculty Relations --
James Dougal Fleming
Professor, Department of English
Simon Fraser University 778-782-4713
Burnaby -- British Columbia -- Canada. Against armbands.
--
James Dougal Fleming
Professor, Department of English
Simon Fraser University 778-782-4713
Burnaby -- British Columbia -- Canada. Against armbands.
--
James Dougal Fleming
Professor, Department of English
Simon Fraser University 778-782-4713
Burnaby -- British Columbia -- Canada. Against armbands.
--
James Dougal Fleming
Professor, Department of English
Simon Fraser University 778-782-4713
Burnaby -- British Columbia -- Canada. Against armbands.
--
James Dougal Fleming
Professor, Department of English
Simon Fraser University 778-782-4713
Burnaby -- British Columbia -- Canada.
Against armbands.
|