Data from Bargaining Survey
This analysis explores the responses from the faculty. It is based on the data from 468 respondents.
Of these: 167 are not eligible for tenure (NET), 68 are on tenure track (TT) and 251 are tenured (TEN)
Based on published data from WSU payroll, the respondents to this survey represent 32-38% of the faculty across classifications (Professors, Associate and Assistant Professors; Lecturers and Senior Lecturers; Assistant, Associate and Full Professors (Clinical and Research) with the exception of Lecturers and Assistant Professors (Clinical and Research) for whom the figures were 75% and 9%, respectively.
Faculty Basics
Gender
Ethnicity
Age
Salary
Division
Disabilities
High Priorities
Questions asked – but respondents were not able to rank the priorities
Protect tenure/ESS from “post tenure/ESS review” and other efforts to weaken job security
Strengthen job security for lecturers and other non-tenure-track/non-ESS-track employees
Prevent bargaining unit erosion (i.e. reclassification of bargaining unit positions, replacement of bargaining unit positions with non-rep positions, reassignment of job duties rather than filling vacated positions
Strengthen the criteria for declaring “financial exigency” which can lead to layoffs of faculty and academic staff, regardless of tenure or ESS status
We do not know which of these four would represent the top priority for the members
Protect tenure/ESS from “post tenure/ESS review” and other efforts to weaken job security
Select your level of agreement with each of the following statements to indicate which you feel should be a high priority during upcoming negotiations
Strengthen job security for lecturers and other non-tenure-track/non-ESS-track employees
Strongly Agree/Agree (~70%) TT & TEN faculty. ~40% for
NET
Strongly Agree/Agree (~80%) by all faculty.
NET
TT
TEN
Prevent bargaining unit erosion (i.e. reclassification of bargaining unit positions, replacement of bargaining unit positions with non-rep positions, reassignment of job duties rather than filling vacated positions
Select your level of agreement with each of the following statements to indicate which you feel should be a high priority during upcoming negotiations
Strengthen the criteria for declaring “financial exigency” which can lead to layoffs of faculty and academic staff, regardless of tenure or ESS status
Strongly Agree/Agree (75-85%) by all faculty for both statements
Compensation issues
Questions asked – but respondents were not able to rank the priorities
We do not know which of these four would represent the top priority for the members
The annual rate of inflation is ~ 2%. The current WSU AAUP-AFT contract allocates a 1.25% Across-the-Board raise for all bargaining unit members and 1.25% overall increase for the pool used for Selective Salary increases per year. I feel these increases have been
The WSU/AAUP-AFT contract outlines “base salaries” for each classification and rank covered. Although salaries below the floor are prohibited, an individual faculty or academic staff member can receive a salary above the base with Admin approval. Although this allows for differences based on discipline and market forces, it can also be affected by biases. A low start at or near base can grow into significant gaps (wage compression). Would you support an adjustment based on longevity, to increase the salaries of those near the base
Considering your salary for your job classification, rank, and time of service, within your department, program or area, how would you rate your compensation? My pay is ___ compared to co-workers with the same job classification, rank and time in service.
Considering your salary for your job classification, rank, and time of service, how would you rate your compensation compared to similar institutions? My pay is ___ compared to persons in my type of position at similar institutions
The annual rate of inflation is ~ 2%. The current WSU AAUP-AFT contract allocates a 1.25% Across-the-Board raise for all bargaining unit members and 1.25% overall increase for the pool used for Selective Salary increases per year. I feel these increases have been
The WSU/AAUP-AFT contract outlines “base salaries” for each classification and rank covered. Although salaries below the floor are prohibited, an individual faculty or academic staff member can receive a salary above the base with Admin approval. Although this allows for differences based on discipline and market forces, it can also be affected by biases. A low start at or near base can grow into significant gaps (wage compression). Would you support an adjustment based on longevity, to increase the salaries of those near the base
Much too low/Somewhat low (70-85%) by all faculty.
70-75% NET and TT faculty say within 2 – 5 yrs. While figure is ~50% for TEN faculty
Considering your salary for your job classification, rank, and time of service, within your department, program or area, how would you rate your compensation? My pay is ___ compared to co-workers with the same job classification, rank and time in service.
Considering your salary for your job classification, rank, and time of service, how would you rate your compensation compared to similar institutions? My pay is ___ compared to persons in my type of position at similar institutions
40-55% of all faculty think compensation appropriate within dept., program or area, while 30-50% think its appropriate compared to other institutions
Pay Equity
Questions asked
Pay is fairly distributed with the more productive employees receiving higher compensation
Adjustments for unfair pay differentials are made fairly and appropriately
There is little or no difference on ethnicity
There is little or no difference based on gender
Pay is fairly distributed with the more productive employees receiving higher compensation
Adjustments for unfair pay differentials are made fairly and appropriately
More than half of all faculty Strongly Disagree/Disagree. 25% of TEN faculty Strongly Agree/Agree
~80% of all faculty Strongly Disagree/Disagree/I don’t know. But highest response across faculty is I don’t know
There is little or no difference on ethnicity
There is little or no difference based on gender
Perceptions of pay disparities based on ethnicities. Highest response is I don’t know
Clear perceptions of pay disparities based on gender. Again, I don’t know is a major response
Selective Salary
A: Completely satisfied with process�B: Completely dissatisfied with review criteria�C: Dissatisfied with results of the process�D: Dissatisfied with the SSC election process
A: Contract criteria does not fairly reward those deserving
B: Service is under-recognized in my unit
C: Teaching is under-recognized in my unit
D: Scholarly, creat. or prof. achievements under-recognized
E: Job performance under recognized
F: SET score over emphasized in teaching evaluations
G: Arbitrary standards by Selective Salary Committee
H: Selective Salary standards not uniformly at College
I: Factors statement not shared in unit
Selective Salary – check all that apply
Comments
In my Department, Salary Committee serves as a de facto enforcement arm of Tenure and Promotion. That is, the criteria for excellence are based on moving forwards towards promotion, punishing and "sending a message" to those who are not seen to be moving forward quickly enough
I think we need to move away from metrics that are inherently biased and vary even between similar sub-fields.
The use of SET scores does not account for known biases based on gender, race, etc., and in general the criteria do not adequately account for the additional service and teaching burdens placed on women and people of color. The evaluation process in my unit exacerbates these unfairnesses, because almost everyone in the department receives the same high scores: the white men who do little or no service receive comparable scores to women and women of color who are overburdened by the amount of service they take on.
Everybody gets the same score - which devalues the whole thing
The process is deeply politicized with rampant bullying/scape goating.
The entire process is a complete charade and an utter waste of time
As a tenured Associate Professor, I make less than many of the Assistant Professors in my department, as well as less than other tenured professors who haven't been productive in several years
Unfair at all levels, should remove merit review. Peers can not be trusted not to be vengeful and unbiased.
With the high ATB amounts, there is little money to be given out with selective salaries. And in my unit, even the selective salary is given out ATB.
Service outside the university is not factored. I am thoroughly disgusted the last 20 years.;
I am not sure how to interpret the factors for lecturers/clinicals
Scores are changed arbritarily. Reviewer assignments are biased.
Those in the department know best and need to be trusted. Counting papers, etc., is too crude a metric.
Definition of creative/scholarly activity has been unduly influenced by certain Chairs and some colleagues. No open discussion has taken place among faculty for years. Also SETs are used exclusively and indiscriminately in evaluating Teaching. No peer review or classroom visits have been implemented.
Same people on salary committee each year, with others afraid to self-nominate. Lots of back-scratching and very little critical look that might differentiate between colleagues. Non-tenure-track instructors are under-represented on committee and receive little consideration w/r/t pay equity.
The criteria are too lax and the bar is too low.
What counts as teaching vs research is ambiguous when it comes to training PhD students. It should be clearly delineated. There are faculty in my unit who never teach an undergraduate course.
A: Selective Salary process unclear to me�B: Actual Selective Sal increases insufficient�C: Committee ineffective in equity adjustments�D: Unit head disregards committee recommendations�E: Committee biased against certain individuals�F: No appeals process
A: No Selective Salary committee in my unit
B: Members in my Sel Sal Committee are not elected
C: Unit re-elects same people repeatedly
D: Unit head appoints Selective Salary Committee
Concerns with RESULTS of Selective Salary process- check all that apply
Comments
Non university leadership roles are discounted regardless of amount of responsibility the individual has
Quantity is rewarded versus quality of teaching
Specific Individuals on our dept. committee have at times greatly influenced criteria to benefit a minority of faculty or themselves, as opposed to representative criteria fairly applied to all faculty. Our Dept. Chair is predominately transparent with the criteria and process (i.e., after policies are passed) and typically seeks to rectify prevailing issues during subsequent review periods. The above noted, the are no apparent safeguards in place to help assure the committee and process adheres to the AAUP-AFT contract and university policy (e.g., merit should most likely be awarded for quality of teaching as opposed to self-reported quantity of teaching). The above noted, our administrators are well intentioned, and I would fault the process and lack of university and union oversight for the above shortcomings.
Note that there is more implicit bias than deliberate bias, which suggests different solutions, i.e. effective education on implicit bias.
Again, in my department (the ELI), there is no committee. Even worse, there is no procedure or transparency in the process of granting merit increases.
Leacturers and senior lecturers are excluded from the process, have the most additional duties added and generally get screwed in allocation of any possible rewards.
The committee does not understand work of some individuals
There is no differentiation in raises based on productivity. I get the same raise as my colleagues, who do not publish and teach smaller classes.
no compensation for doing more work - everyone gets same score
The selective salary committee rating is not shared with the faculty members. How are we to improve if we do not get feedback in the review process?
Service is dramatically undervalued and women bear the brunt of it.
A percentage, based on random totals, awards people with same scores differently year to year. Moreover, it is unclear if raises are uniform across departments, or if all departments are subject to equal scrutiny and revisions.
Results of a highly politicized process, used not only for selective salary decisions but can also lead to punitive "mentoring"
If anything way too many faculty are getting 1s on research and teaching, thus, productive faculty get smaller raises
I don't think it takes into account how many directed studies and all of the individualized work that I do with students.
No guidance is given on how to raise scores.
Departments rate too many people at the same level, making the adjustments minimal
Changes are routinely made from dept recommendations with no justification
I mean, the raises are so small that it doesn't really feel very consequential
The Dept Chair holds and exercises too much power and control over "Committee" recommendations.
This can be by department, but I feel that faculty want to reword everyone despite their actual workloads, so people who are more productive and engage in service are not necessarily rewarded based on their productivity. Committees tend to want to give everyone the same scores, which means that faculty who are highly productive across the board receive nearly the same compensation as the rest of the faculty.
A more thorough discussion is needed to clarify the value and relevance of what each faculty member does. At times certain Chairs have influenced the process too much. Perhaps Chairs should not be part of the SA committee but should offer their assessment separately. Also, awards can be assigned for those receiving 1 or 1.5 rather than just 1. This would ensure more equitable distribution.
Use of Faculty 180 by SOM faculty- which is hard to use and which produces reports that are highly challenging for salary committees at each level to interpret- leads to potential biases in the review process
The use if Interfolio has made the entire process inaccurate.
certain individuals get salary increases well beyond the selective salary process through deals with chairs, deans, provost (retentions, etc.) leading to very large salary differentials and no rewards for loyalty - the differential in salary for full professors in my dept is over $100,000
In the School of Medicine, selective increases are only given to faculty with a '1' score, lumping 'meets expectations' in with those doing essentially nothing (a ranking of 4).
Appeals are disregarded and the chair is indiferent to the faculty concerns
If this were not mandatory, I would send my yearly acomplishments in for review or just pass on the whole confusing process.
A: Eliminate SS make all increases ATB �B: More money to ATB raises less to SS�C: Make no change. Equal ATB and SS allocations�D: More money to SS raises less to ATB�E: Eliminate ATB make all increases SS�
Preference for allocation of annual increases
A: Eliminate SS make all increases ATB �B: More money to ATB raises less to SS�C: Make no change. Equal ATB and SS allocations�D: More money to SS raises less to ATB�E: Eliminate ATB make all increases SS�
Majority say either make no change or increase ATB compared to SS
A: Much too high B: Somewhat high C: Appropriate�D: Somewhat low E: Much too low
Raises stipulated based on AAUP contract
An Academic Staff member receives a
5% pay increase when promoted to
any higher rank. This amount is:
A Lecturer promoted to Senior Lecturer receives $2,250 (Note: Senior Lecturer is the top rank for this classification). This amount is:
Majority say increase is appropriate or somewhat low
Majority say increase is somewhat or much too low
A: Much too high B: Somewhat high C: Appropriate�D: Somewhat low E: Much too low
Raises stipulated based on AAUP contract
An Assistant Professor promoted to
Associate Professor receives $5,000.
This amount is:
An Associate Professor promoted to
Full Professor receives $8,500. This
amount is:
Majority say increase is appropriate or somewhat low
AAUP-AFT Survey Data
Fall 2020
Faculty Salary
AAUP-AFT Local 6075