Fact Sheet #3. July 2005

Grid-Iron Action?

One of the outcomes of the 2005 salary settlement is that UGFA and the Administration would begin the scheduled 5-year review of the Long Term Salary and Benefits Plan. As “LTS&B” actually only deals with salaries, and not benefits, “the Grid” would probably be the more accurate short form. There are TWO grids – one for faculty and one for librarians.

Most UGFA members will know that their salary depends on what step they are on the grid, and that salary increases somehow involve the steps awarded from TAPSI reviews. You may even know that junior faculty get GIANT steps, and senior faculty get “baby” steps, when the value of the steps are compared. But what is this Grid, and why do we have it, and what kind of review are we going to be doing? Here’s some background information that may help.

In 1983, this university was 13th best in Ontario for salaries. The salary grid was an effort to find a self-financing system so new people coming into the system and those leaving would balance, and where predictable step increases would allow the administration to project future salary costs. The grid system applies to all faculty and librarians. “Market differentials” in salaries were eliminated, because no-one could define what that was.

• The model selected for the grid wasn’t a straight-line increase in salary, nor was it the traditional academic model of waiting for 30 years to get to “job rate”. Instead, the grid provided for a series of large value steps for people early in their career (when they need the money!). The size and hence the value of steps changes over the grid, so that Steps 1 to 5 are .08 x Salary Base (SB) while steps above Step 40 are .01 x SB. A faculty member or librarian having satisfactory service could achieve a final salary of about 2.25 x SB after 35 years of service. For the grid to work, it is essential that the value of the SALARY BASE be maintained at a level that accommodates inflation and is consistent with starting salary levels in other Ontario universities. The plan states that during negotiations the increase should not be less than .8 of the rate of inflation. As well, there is an allowance that every three years the salary base will be examined by the Association and the Administration to validate the results of the annual negotiations. However, in the last decade, the administration has been reluctant to negotiate the kind of increases to the salary base that would reflect real starting salaries. The effect is that new faculty being hired at competitive rates are often above Step 5, so essentially the grid has collapsed into a very shallow structure, and is no longer self-financing (i.e. high salaries “released” by retiring faculty fund the large step increases for junior faculty). The current low Salary Base is about $10,000 below what would be realistic and is a major problem with the salary grid.Other adjustments to the system also have affected how the grid works. These changes include:
• Increase in the number of “additional steps” available for merit awards (TAPSI extra steps) from 15% of the total steps to 30% (2% is reserved to the Provost {this is part of the 30% noted above})
• Awards of Special Presidential Supplements (1% ).
• Special pool of steps reserved for contractually-limited faculty.

Recent negotiations have produced the following changes to the grid:

• Increase value of steps 25-40 from 0.01 xSB to 0.02 xSB
• Use of a scheme of Supplementary Merit Step Payments in the 2005 settlement, adjusted for step level and prior TAPSI awards

The basic concepts of the grid are good. But after 20 years of ‘fiddling’ a number of issues need review – including the value of the Salary Base, the reliability of future changes to the base and both sides commitment to a viable base. How – and whether - “true merit” should be incorporated into a progress-through-the-ranks system is also a question for discussion. Canada Research Chairs also present an issue for application of the grid to all faculty, as Tier 1 Chairs are paid by the granting agencies, while Tier 2 Chairs are on the grid with an additional stipend.

The final and most important issue, that of “fifth place” is a major a component of the LTS&B plan that must be maintained. The concept of 5th place was originally an Administration proposal to which the Association heartily agreed.

Thom Herrmann, a past-president of UGFA, provided information and perspectives useful in preparing this factsheet. This UGFA fact sheet is intended to provide general background information to UGFA members to allow them to understand their association better and to encourage active participation.