2015-2016 Salary Equity Plan
Developed by: Promotion, Tenure, and Salary Committee
May 6, 2015
There is well-documented faculty and staff salary inequity at UW-L. This inequity comes in
several forms:
 Salaries that are below the CUPA median for comparable rank and discipline (all but 11
faculty are below the CUPA median);
 Salaries that are compressed relative to expectations based on rank and experience;
 Salaries that are inverted relative to expectations based on rank and experience.
Faculty members highlighted inversion and compression as top concerns in salary equity in
a 2013-2014 survey conducted by PTS. For the purposes of PTS discussions and
recommendations to Faculty Senate, PTS uses the following definitions:



“Salary compression is the hiring of lower-ranked faculty at salaries which are below
the salaries of higher-ranked faculty but have the effect of compressing the difference
between their salaries” (O’Boyle, 2012, p. 976).
Between-rank salary inversion occurs when there is “hiring of lower-ranked faculty at
salaries which are above the salaries of higher-ranked faculty and have the effect of
inverting the common practice of paying higher salaries to the higher-ranked faculty”
(O’Boyle, 2012, p. 976). Within-rank salary inversion occurs when someone within a
rank has a higher salary than someone else who has been in the same rank for more or the
same number of years.
Adjusted CUPA median salary (“PTS target salary”): PTS uses a “time in rank”
formula that adjusts the CUPA median for each person depending on years in rank, based
on the expectation that in general, more years in rank will result in higher salaries. The
CUPA median salary is assigned to those faculty who are at the median number of years
in rank (Assistants = 3, Associates = 3, Full = 9). If faculty are below the median years in
rank, their PTS target salary is lower than CUPA by 1% for every year they are below the
median years in rank. If they are above the median years in rank, their PTS target salary
is above CUPA by 1% for every year they are above the median years in rank. A
maximum target salary cap of twice the median was put on all ranks (6% maximum
upward adjustment for assistant/associate, and 18% maximum upward adjustment for
full).
Formulas:
Years in rank adjustment = (Years in rank – Median years in rank)/100 + 1
PTS target salary = (Years in rank adjustment) x (CUPA median salary)
Examples:
An associate professor with 0 years in rank, CUPA median salary = $65,000
Years in rank adjustment = (0-3)/100 + 1 = 0.97
PTS target salary = 0.97 x $65,000 = $63,050
Full professor with 15 years in rank, CUPA median salary = $80,000
Years in rank adjustment = (15-9)/100 + 1 = 1.06
PTS target salary = 1.06 x $80,000 = $84,800
Analysis of inversion reveals that as of spring 2015, 25 tenure-track faculty (7%) are inverted
between ranks (total dollar amount of between-rank inversion ~$62,300), whereas 153 faculty
(40%) are inverted either between or within ranks (total dollar amount of all inversion ~
$466,000).
Analysis of UW-L faculty salaries using the PTS formula to take into account compression
within ranks reveals that 17% of tenure-track faculty are below 80% of their PTS target salaries,
and another 27% are between 80-85% of their PTS target salaries. (Using the CUPA median
instead, 14% are below 80% of CUPA and 24% are between 80-85% of CUPA.)
In total, 63% of the faculty have inversion, compression, or significant CUPA salary inequity
issues. Thus it is imperative that even small pay plans make an effort to remediate salary inequity
issues or they will continue to become even more problematic.
Based on the existing salary deficiencies and sources, PTS makes the following
recommendation for dissemination of pay plan dollars for the 2015-16 academic year,
assuming a 1% total pay plan.
Phase 1: All faculty/staff deemed meritorious by their departments will receive a 0.5% increase
to their base salaries. (For salary adjustments in future years, departments must provide
documentation of their merit procedures for their faculty to be eligible for base salary increases).
Phase 2: The remaining monies will be used for individual adjustments to correct for inversion
and inequity in relation to PTS adjusted CUPA medians (and then compression if sufficient
monies are available), where deemed appropriate.
Specific Phase 2 procedures:
1. Compensation in the equity adjustment phase will be capped at $2000 per
individual to increase the number of faculty who receive equity adjustments.
2. PTS will provide a list of salaries to College Deans that show levels of inversion
and compression. Specifically, PTS will provide information on:
a. Between rank inversions
b. Within rank inversions
c. Salary compressions based on CUPA and PTS target parity
3. Cases of rank inversion and/or salaries that are less than 80% of their PTS
target salaries should be prioritized for adjustment in Phase 2. However, PTS
understands that some of these cases may be justified, for example, an assistant
professor starting with a higher salary because of previous years of experience or
a salary increase received due to merit that produces inversion. Deans/Chairs will
need to identify and justify these special cases.
4. Deans will consult with Chairs to determine greatest needs for salary adjustment
and to consider the merit history of individuals.
5. Ultimately the decisions for equity pay increases will be made by the Provost
because requests for equity funds will likely exceed money available.
6. The Provost’s office will report salary decisions to PTS, which will review the
Provost’s final decisions.
Remediation Effects:
The total of all faculty salaries is $23.8 M, so a 1% pay plan amounts to $238,000 in salary plan
dollars to faculty.
A. Implementation of PTS Recommendations
The PTS recommendations for the 2015-16 pay plan would allocate ~$119,000 in a flat 0.5%
pay increase to all 378 faculty in Phase 1, and ~$119,000 for inversion and compression
corrections as detailed under Phase 2 procedures (above). The following numbers illustrate the
magnitude of corrections that could be made with these equity dollars, but specific numbers of
faculty affected and dollar amounts will vary somewhat depending on individual decisions made
by Deans and Chairs.
All 25 cases of rank inversion can be reduced or corrected using the Phase 2 equity dollars at a
cost of ~$36,000 (using a $2000 maximum adjustment per faculty).
All 57 cases of <80% PTS target salary parity can be reduced or corrected using the Phase 2
equity dollars at a cost of ~$75,000 (using a $2000 maximum adjustment per faculty).
Because some of the same faculty experience rank inversion and low PTS target salary parity, all
70 cases of rank inversion and <80% PTS target salary parity can be reduced or corrected
using the Phase 2 equity dollars at a cost of ~$100,000 (using a $2000 maximum adjustment per
faculty). These corrections would affect 19% of the faculty members at UW-L.
Because some of the same faculty experience rank inversion and low PTS target salary parity, a
total of 113 cases of rank inversion and <82% PTS target salary parity can be reduced or
corrected using the Phase 2 equity dollars at a cost of ~$156,000 (using a $2000 maximum
adjustment per faculty). These corrections would affect 30% of the faculty members at UW-L.
B. Implementation of a flat 1% pay increase to all faculty
An across the board 1% increase will maintain the same number of faculty who experience
compression and inversion (between rank inversion: 25; between and within rank inversion:
154). However, the total inequity dollar amount is exacerbated.
In spring 2015, the total required to address all between rank inversion is $62,304; a flat 1%
increase to all faculty would increase the total between rank inversion inequity to $62,927.
Likewise, in spring 2015 the total required to address all between rank and within rank inversion
is $465,914; a flat 1% increase to all faculty would increase the total rank inversion inequity to
$470,573.
Reference
O’Boyle, E.J. (2012). Salary compression and inversion in the university workplace.
International Journal of Social Economics, 28, p. 959-979.