This document has been prepared in order to address questions frequently asked about the offer made by the University to APUO. It is important that APUO members understand all aspects of that offer and how it would affect each member’s income, benefits and working conditions. It is also important that APUO members evaluate the offer on its merits and in accordance with all of the facts. We hope that this document will be helpful in that respect.
1. How does uOttawa’s monetary offer compare to those made by other Ontario universities?
The following chart compares the offer made by the University of Ottawa to the most recent agreements signed by a broad range of comparable Ontario university faculty associations. As appears clearly from the chart, the University’s offer is comparable to settlements reached recently at those other institutions.
2. Will the pension adjustments cause my take-home pay to go down?
No. When you put the pension adjustment together with the salary increase, every single professor is getting a pay increase in an amount comparable to those negotiated for their peers at other Ontario universities.
3. The University’s analysis of market catch-up seems very different from the union’s. Who do I believe?
The University stands by its numbers and believes a catch-up adjustment of 2.3% of total salary mass over 3 years is reasonable. An extensive amount of research and fact-checking goes into the information we provide to our employees. Ultimately, individual employees will decide what information to trust.
We have identified several potential causes for the discrepancies.
Regarding the market adjustment (catch-up adjustment), the APUO’s analysis appears to be using outdated 2010 Statistics Canada salary data. This information includes neither the 2011 scale increase nor the most recent anomaly adjustments, both of which were included in the University’s analysis.
In addition, the University’s model uses the variable “year since highest degree” as opposed to “age” to isolate the actual number of years of experience post-PhD. The University also adjusted for both gender and faculty, and found that the two variables that explain the largest variations in salary are professor rank and faculty.
Finally, the comparator groups used in the respective analyses are different. While the APUO uses a comparator group of seven other universities, the University uses a comparator group of research-intensive Ontario universities, which tend to have higher average salaries.
Here’s the bottom line. Whereas the APUO uses what we believe to be a limited “raw means weighted by age group” approach, the University uses a least-squares approach, a tool routinely used by researchers in many disciplines. It has allowed us to obtain salary averages by rank, corrected for “years since highest degree” and “gender”. This more accurate estimation method indicates an overall market gap of 0.5% (with variations by rank) in comparison with Queen’s, McMaster, Waterloo and Western. This would be the value of the market adjustment if we were to apply it across-the-board (ATB), i.e. uniformly across disciplines. This is a much smaller gap than the 3.05% incorrectly assessed by the APUO.
4. What’s the harm in simply adjusting to market while ignoring variance by faculty?
The University bases its analysis on 2011 salaries—compared to the 2010 data used by APUO—and takes into account the scale and market anomaly adjustments in 2011. This information demonstrates that if the salary differential analysis were conducted without taking into account discipline variances, the average salary gap would be in the order of 0.5%—not the 3.05% suggested by the APUO. The University does not believe that this addresses the real anomaly issues that have been shown to exist.
5. Is the University proposing a raise for Arts and Science professors?
Yes, and for every other faculty member. Regardless of faculty, in terms of total compensation (salary and pension combined), every single professor is getting a raise comparable to what other Ontario university professors have received.
In terms of the additional market adjustment, the University’s analysis shows that our Arts and Science professors have higher salaries, on average, than their peers in other Ontario universities. In Arts, their salaries are 11%, 2.5% and 5.6% higher for assistant, associate and full professors respectively; in Science, 8.6%, 5.4% and 2.9% respectively.
This is a tremendous competitive advantage for the University. Our goal is to preserve this advantage, while ensuring we become equally competitive across other faculties and ranks.
6. Is the Anomalies Committee the right body to address the question of distribution of the catch-up envelope?
The Anomalies Committee is a joint APUO-employer committee whose mandate is to distribute a negotiated amount of money aimed at reducing inequalities. That is why the University proposed that this committee assume responsibility for the distribution.
Of prime importance to the University is that the market catch-up envelope be distributed in full collaboration with the APUO, guided by agreed-upon principles.
7. The Anomalies Committee has not yet completed distribution of the 2008 anomaly envelope. How will the committee manage to do this and take on the new challenge?
The work of the anomalies committee is complex as the formulas used to distribute the funds requires various regression analyses and formula adjustments to avoid the creation of salary inversions. Even if this work was done by another group, the same challenge would arise. But the committee now benefits from its experience, and is the group officially designated by the agreement. With this priority in mind, the University proposes to proceed as follows:
- Distribute the 2008 anomaly envelope.
- Recalculate the uOttawa salaries.
- Recalculate the salary market differences. The linear model will automatically adjust to incorporate the effect of the update.
8. The APUO says that under article 7.2, the University must immediately hire up to 400 new professors. Is that true?
Article 7.2 sets APUO hiring levels to a1983-84 benchmark. In essence, the collective agreement that was effective on May 1, 1984 provided that the ratio that then existed between full and part-time professors would remain the same over time. A strict and immediate application of that benchmark today would mean that the University would have to hire a significant number of additional full time professors.
But there are good reasons why that 1983-84 benchmark should not be applied today.
The bargaining history between APUO and the University shows that after 1985, this clause was for all practical purposes ignored by both parties. It has remained unmentioned and unenforced by either side for almost 30 years. In the many collective agreements have been signed in the interim, this clause has remained dormant.
In the meantime, however, the context in which article 7.2 was originally adopted has changed significantly over the three decades that have passed.
- The University has grown considerably and has increased in research intensity.
- Professors are now expected to invest more time in research and scholarly activities than they were in 1985.
- In the context of the University’s strategic direction toward the development of research across campus, professors benefited from more course release to conduct research and supervise thesis students.
All of this, plus the enormous growth of our student body, has resulted in an increase in the number of course sections taught by non-APUO members far beyond what the parties could reasonably have imagined or expected in 1985.
In addition, of course, provincial funding for PSE has not kept pace with rising needs. And the creation of the Association of Part Time Professors (which did not exist in 1985) has added a new dimension to the bargaining environment at the University.
In all of these circumstances, the University argues that to insist on a strict application of a 30 year old benchmark, heretofore ignored by both parties, to a workplace that has since changed in fundamental ways, would be unfair and unreasonable and would not serve anyone’s interests.
It is also important to note that although the number of part-time professors has increased, the University has continued to hire full time APUO professors to keep pace with student growth.
For all of these reasons, the University has proposed the removal of this contractual relic, stressing that no jobs would be threatened by its removal. Quite the contrary, in fact: the University proposes the creation of 24 new APUO positions over the duration of this collective agreement, once ratified.
9. Will my job be replaced by a teaching-focused tenure track position?
No. All teaching-focused tenure track positions will immediately add to the APUO ranks.
Given the University’s aspirations toward intensifying its research and improving the student experience, the University has proposed the creation of new APUO teaching-focused tenure track positions, new traditional APUO positions and a new librarian position. The number of teaching focused tenure track positions will increase gradually until 2020, but will not exceed 10% of the total number of APUO professors
Many research-intensive Universities have some form of teaching stream. This allows those universities to focus on their research mission, while at the same time working towards the highest quality of student experience.
The overall impact of the proposed change will be to increase the APUO ranks. In particular, teaching-focused professors will cover more course sections than traditional professors and, in contrast to part-time professors, will be more accessible to students and focused on their teaching at our University on a full-time basis. This will improve the quality of the student experience while freeing up valuable time for our researchers.
10. Will professors in teaching-focused tenure track positions really be expected to teach 10 courses annually?
No. Please read the University’s actual proposal to the APUO. We expect that Teaching Focused Professors will teach approximately twice as much as the Traditional Professors taking into consideration Faculty norms and factors such as class size. The maximum number of unique courses taught per year would be set at five.
11. Is it true that the University has more cash in the bank than Tim Hortons?
We can’t speak for Tim Hortons, but it is true that the University currently has $354 million of cash on hand. Why? The primary reason is that we hold more than $328 million in cash on hand from various levels of government and affiliate institutions in trust for various research and capital projects.
Money that is held in trust can only be spent for the purposes for which the trust was created. In the case of research grants, the money can only be spent by the researchers on their specific research projects. In the case of moneys received and held by the University in trust to finance building projects like the new Advanced Research Complex, they can only be spent there.
Trust funds cannot be brought into general revenues, and therefore cannot be used for salary increases, to fund pension obligations or any of the other priorities of the University.
The remaining $26 million is reallocated to cover various expenses associated with academic and research activities.
So as you can see, there really isn’t any relevant comparison between the University’s cash position and that of Tim Hortons.
This information has been shared with the APUO.
12. Is the University providing all necessary and relevant information to the APUO?
Yes. The University strives to be as transparent as reasonably possible in terms of its financial data and posts as much as possible online.
There is some information that the APUO has requested that the University simply does not have. For example, APUO has requested historical information related to the 1983-84 benchmarks derived from the unenforced article 7.2. The University does not possess any such information. No such information was ever created or collected. Especially since article 7.2 was ignored and put out of mind after it was adopted, there was no need to perform analysis or keep records.
The University has been open with the APUO about what we have and do not have. And we have provided all the relevant information in our possession.
13. Why is the university proposing a change to the YMPE?
The Yearly Maximum Pensionable Earnings (YMPE) change that the University suggests is a change that is one step to ensuring the University’s pension plan becomes more sustainable. This approach (called “true YMPE”) is comparable to what we see in all other Ontario universities. U Ottawa is the only University that veered away from the true YMPE and we are finding our way back there. The true YMPE is the norm.
This change would align the YMPE formula used in our pension fund with Canada Pension Plan (CPP) calculation formula.
