Sunday, February 12, 2006
Back Loading
Back loading is a way of structuring an offer that has been used by both the administration and the union bargaining team. It's not inherently good or bad, but people should be aware when it's happening and what the implications are.
The basic idea is that a pay raise takes effect later in the contract. For example, to make the math easy, suppose you get paid $100 a month for 10 months - i.e., annual salary is $1,000. Suppose you are offered a 100% increase in your salary, but it becomes effective only on the last pay period of the contract. In this case, you would receive $200 in that last pay period, but only $100 for the rest of them - i.e., your annual salary would only be $1,100. For the current year, you only see a 10% increase not the 100% increase that was advertised. Of course, next year you're make $200 per month or $2,000 per year.
The union has suggested to the administration that the implementation of some proposals could be back loaded. For example, our original goal was $42,000 per year for step one, and we wanted that in September 2005. In the spirit of negotiation, we suggested that the effective date was subject to bargaining.
However, the administration rejected this. The administration claimed repeatedly that higher-ups (the OUS board and/or the governor) have expressly prohibited back loading. We have insisted that this is an issue of political will (to change that "rule") not an issue of money in the current contract period.
OK, fine - this means the administration is going to front load everything, right? Let's get all of the pay raises as soon as possible. Wrong! If you look at the most recent proposal from the administration, it is indeed back loaded. The last raise is granted in the last full pay period of the contract. What happened to no back loading?
This is total hypocrisy on the part of the administration. When it serves the administration's interest, back loading is OK. When the faculty proposes it to help the administration, it's not acceptable. Of course, we shouldn't be surprised - they always have money for their projects but always plead poverty when it comes time to pay the faculty.
Quit playing games. Just give us a straight-forward contract with a decent wage.
The basic idea is that a pay raise takes effect later in the contract. For example, to make the math easy, suppose you get paid $100 a month for 10 months - i.e., annual salary is $1,000. Suppose you are offered a 100% increase in your salary, but it becomes effective only on the last pay period of the contract. In this case, you would receive $200 in that last pay period, but only $100 for the rest of them - i.e., your annual salary would only be $1,100. For the current year, you only see a 10% increase not the 100% increase that was advertised. Of course, next year you're make $200 per month or $2,000 per year.
The union has suggested to the administration that the implementation of some proposals could be back loaded. For example, our original goal was $42,000 per year for step one, and we wanted that in September 2005. In the spirit of negotiation, we suggested that the effective date was subject to bargaining.
However, the administration rejected this. The administration claimed repeatedly that higher-ups (the OUS board and/or the governor) have expressly prohibited back loading. We have insisted that this is an issue of political will (to change that "rule") not an issue of money in the current contract period.
OK, fine - this means the administration is going to front load everything, right? Let's get all of the pay raises as soon as possible. Wrong! If you look at the most recent proposal from the administration, it is indeed back loaded. The last raise is granted in the last full pay period of the contract. What happened to no back loading?
This is total hypocrisy on the part of the administration. When it serves the administration's interest, back loading is OK. When the faculty proposes it to help the administration, it's not acceptable. Of course, we shouldn't be surprised - they always have money for their projects but always plead poverty when it comes time to pay the faculty.
Quit playing games. Just give us a straight-forward contract with a decent wage.
# posted by Charles Anderson @ 1:32 PM 
