UFF Summary/Interpretation

In CBA 2007-2010
◦ “C & I student completed by Feb. 1, 2009”
◦ Started by Joint Committee. Completed by UFF-FGCU to make
an offer for bargaining. No agreement.

In CBA 2009-11 Supplement
◦ 23.8 Compression and Inversion Study. Recognizing that the
University and the UFF-FGCU Chapter did not jointly complete
a Compression and Inversion (C&I) Study as outlined in the
2007-2010 Collective Bargaining Agreement, the parties
acknowledge that the parties will commission an external
consulting firm having a regional and/or national reputation
and experience in performing compensation studies to conduct
a C&I Study to inform bargaining.

Salary Compression occurs when newly hired, or junior
faculty members receive a rate of pay that approaches, or is
approximately equal, to the rate paid to faculty of higher, or
senior, professional rank.

Salary Inversion arises when junior faculty members earn
higher salaries than senior faculty.

Within rank and between ranks.

Study because individual faculty members saw newer
faculty getting salaries the same as, or more than,
experienced faculty members.

Faculty members felt this was unfair -- Climate Study,
turnover, lower morale, less willingness to serve the
college, less willing to mentor new faculty, had completed
an external study (Market Study) several years before and
had discussed doing the internal study in the future at that
time.

Compression and inversion exists across the university.
For example:
CIP
Coll
Subj
Rank
Yr
Hire
Salary
03
CAS
Ecology
Asst
09
49,980
Prof
02
88,900
Assoc
97
64,460
Prof
05
64,666
Prof
06
71,735
Asst
06
70,754
Asst
10
75,000
Assoc
06
79,400
Assoc
08
96,900
09
14
CAS
Eng
Communication
Engineering
CIP
Coll
Subject
Rank
Yr
Hire
Salary
22
CPS
Justice Studies
Asst
04
50,330
Asst
07
50,480
Nursing
Asst
06
66,813
Physical Therapy
Asst
08
70,086
Health Sciences
Assoc
96
68,290
COB
Asst
09
105,060
Assoc
99
88,400
Prof
96
92,527
Inst 1
03
35,800
Inst I
09
36,720
Inst II
06
38,990
51
52
27
Hlth
COB
CAS
Science



Even though the C&I report states that there is no
C&I in the university, except for Health and Business
(H&B). This conclusion is WRONG—it needs to be
understood in light of the statistics used.
C&I is particularly large in H&B, but there is also C&I
in the rest of the University.
Let’s understand what the report does and does not
say, especially in light of the statistics we needed to
use.

The study provided an extra analysis requested by
administration that compares our average JUMPS
between ranks with other universities’ average jumps
◦ This is NOT a market survey of salary levels.

Rank Ratio — compares average salaries between
ranks and compares to other universities. Mean
salary/rank by mean salary/ discipline. Time in rank
not included.
◦ “Do our salary jumps between ranks look like those of other
universities?” Yes, in all but 2 disciplines.
◦ Based on salary averages by rank

Average salaries by rank
◦ Instructor; Jr. Asst. Professor/less than 3 years; Asst.
Professor; Assoc. Professor, Professor
◦ Progressively increase as faculty rise through ranks



Average jumps, not including seniority
The jumps are similar to peer schools. However,
FGCU has larger jumps between levels .
Not true in:
◦ Heath Professions (Instructors higher than Asst.)
◦ Business (Assistants almost = Associates)

Predicts what salary “should be”

Develops different regression equations to predict salaries
for different disciplines and different “ranks”
◦ What would salaries be if we paid everyone consistently, on the
same basis.
◦ Taking into consideration: discipline, rank, years-at-rank, and
market conditions at time of hire to predict “should be”
◦ There are variation within rank


There are 23 disciplines using CIP at 2-digit level
“Ranks:” Instructor, Jr. Asst. Professor, Asst. Professor, Assoc. Professor,
Professor. Also, Library, Advisors.

Regression compared to rank-ratio

Looks at salaries internal to FGCU only, not compared to
other universities.
◦ Considered in the C&I literature (and by the consulting firm) to a
better method than rank-ratio.
◦ Not a market study, we have done two of those previously


Considered: 9 month salaries, CIP code for discipline,
rank, years of service at rank
Most of university paid in a similar manner
◦ University-wide rank and years at rank
◦ Identified the university’s “policy” for paying people
◦ Created a “line of best fit” for predicted salaries

Some paid differently
◦ CIP 51 (mostly Health Professions) and CIP 52 (most of Business
faculty) not paid on the same policy as rest of University
◦ Multipliers differ
◦ Two groups in business identified as having high pay premium in
equation (finance and accounting)

Developed equations for calculation of predicted
salaries for all individual faculty members
Associate
Assistant
Salary
Time in Rank
NOTE: Observations “fit” the regression model, because they are
close to the line. But some people are underpaid,
others overpaid according to the line
Associate
Assistant
Salary
Time in Rank
NOTE: Observations do NOT “fit” the regression model, and so the
model is “significant”. But some people are underpaid,
others overpaid according to the line
Regression Equation Predictions using average
salaries
 New assistants make $12,739 more than Inst.
 New associates make $18,934 more than Inst.
◦ $6195 more than assistants

New professors make $30,355 more than Inst.
◦ $17,616 more than assistants
◦ $11,421 more than associates


Not compressed when experience is not considered.
Additional years of experience are rewarded at an
increasing rate as rank increases.
Regression Equation Predictions using average
salaries
 Additional pay to new assistants, associates, and
professors in Health is negative, means increased
salary for higher ranks are less than for average
faculty.
 Average salary for instructors $64,027
 New assistants $ -3255 (less) than instructors
 New associates $3463 more than instructors
◦ $6720 more than new assistants.

New professors $7236 more than Inst.
◦ $3772 more than new associates
Regression Equation Predictions using average
salaries
 Avg salaries for instructors $57,588
 New assistants earn $32,268 more than instructors
 New associates earn $27,505 more than instructors
◦ $4763 less than new assistants

New professors earn $46,724 more than instructors
◦ $19,219 more than new associates

Faculty in finance and accounting earn $20,375 more
than other business sub-disciplines.
Estimate predicted salaries at the individual faculty
member level.
 Identify discipline (CIP).
$ CIP Intercept
 Identify current rank.
+ $ Rank modifier
 If accounting or finance add
+ $ hi-business
 Multiply years at rank
times years at rank modifier
+ years*rank mod
 Predicted Salary
Predicted Salary
 Actual current salary
- current salary
 Desired adjustment
$
Predicted
salary
Cip
intercept
Rank
Modifier
Yrs at Rank Your years
Total
Hi-Bus
modifier
at rank
Predicted
Actual
Difference
Assistant Professor in CIP 1 (Agriculture), 5 years of
experience at Assistant level
Y=
39,606 14,177
(484)
5
51,363 50,000 1,363
10
82,621 80,000 2,621
Professor, CIP 1 (Agriculture, 10 years of
experience as Professor
Y =
39,606 30,355
1,266
CIP
Coll
03
CAS
09
14
CAS
Eng
Subj
Rank
Yr
Salary
Predict
Diff
Asst
09
49,980
55,374
5,394
Prof
02
88,900
91,675
2,773
Asso
97
64,460
64,850
390
Prof
05
64,666
70,366
5,700
Asst
06
70,754
75,325
4,570
Asst
10
75,000
75,822
822
Asso
07
88,442
84,900
---

Is the study perfect?

Should we have done it a different way

By all means, continue to identify and report to UFF and
Administration your concerns with your experience with
C&I.
◦ NO, but it can be informative as long as we understand what it shows
and doesn’t.
◦ We must also understand the statistics and limitations of the study.
◦ We reviewed the literature on C&I to find the way that other
universities have handled this issue. Regression is what they used.
◦ Previous internal C&I committees have tried to develop “better”
approaches, but these were not agreed to by both sides.
◦ We want something done now—finally--rather than wait for a perfect
study.
◦ I hope that these reports will influence FGCU NOT to sweep the issue
under the unexamined findings of the study.
◦