New CSU Salary "Analysis" -- Senator Bob Snyder Makes an Important Point


From: Bob Snyder 
Date: Wed Feb 20, 2002  07:43:46  AM US/Pacific
To: "Deborah Hennessy" , campussen@calstate.edu, ascsu@calstate.edu
Subject: Re: FACULTY BARGAINING: CFA Factfinding Report

Although I am not surprised by the Chancellor's argument at fact
finding, I am never the less appalled by such behavior.  In
particular, the claims that the faculty enjoy competitive
salaries and that, if calculated properly, we are paid above our
comparison institutions.

Both the Chancellor and the Vice Chancellor have assured the
ASCSU on a number of occasions that they do not think faculty are
adequately compensated and that the CPEC calculation is the
appropriate measure to use.

I am asking that the Executive Committee either draft or direct
one of the standing committees to draft a resolution condemning
the Chancellor for this obviously duplicitous behavior.  This
resolution should be considered at the up coming March plenary.

Bob Snyder


 > At 4:08 PM -0800 2/19/02, Deborah Hennessy wrote:
 > From:
 > Dr. Jacquelyn Ann K. Kegley, Chair
 > Academic Senate of the California State University
 > 401 Golden Shore, Suite 139
 > Long Beach, CA 90802
 > phone: 661.664.2249 or  562.951.4015  (fax 562.951.4911)
 > e-mail:  jkegley@csub.edu
 > dhennessy@calstate.edu
 > http://www.calstate.edu/AcadSen/  
 > 
 > 
 > FYI
 > 
 > 
 > 
 > 
 > 
 > 
 > 
 >  > CFA FACTFINDING REPORT
 >  > 
 >  > The factfinding hearing in the bargaining impasse between CFA and
 >  > the CSU administration took place February 13-15, 2002 in
 >  > Sacramento. Each side provided the neutral factfinder, John
 >  > Caraway, with voluminous written documentation for the oral
 >  > arguments presented. Arguments were presented by Ed Purcell,
 >  > representing CFA, and Sam Strafaci, representing the CSU
 >  > administration.
 >  > 
 >  > Below are some highlights of the arguments presented by the CSU
 >  > administration and by CFA. All quotations are from the written
 >  > materials presented that are part of the official record of the
 >  > proceedings.
 >  > 
 >  > After the neutral factfinder writes his report, it remains
 >  > confidential for a period of ten days. When the report becomes
 >  > public, the current contract will expire and the faculty will
 >  > have the legal right to strike if a successor agreement is not
 >  > reached.
 >  > 
 >  > 
 >  > CSU ADMINISTRATION'S PRESENTATION
 >  > 
 >  > 
 >  > Compensation
 >  > 
 >  > To support its argument that a 2% General Salary Increase for
 >  > faculty compensation--with no step increases, department chair
 >  > increases, expanded health insurance for lecturers, or counselor
 >  > conversion–is sufficient, the administration offered
 >  > evidence that faculty already enjoy "very competitive salaries."
 >  > Despite the fact that the latest official CPEC (California
 >  > Postsecondary Commission) calculations project that faculty
 >  > salaries will lag by 10.6% behind those at comparable
 >  > institutions in the coming year, the administration offered a
 >  > "recalculation" of the CPEC data that they claimed showed CSU
 >  > faculty salaries actually 1% ahead of those at comparable
 >  > institutions. (On rebuttal, CFA pointed out that the
 >  > administration has a representative on CPEC and is, in fact, part
 >  > of the process to determine how to calculate the lag.)
 >  > 
 >  > The administration's sole defense for its refusal to allow
 >  > faculty salary savings to be used toward increased faculty
 >  > compensation was simply that to do so "would necessitate a
 >  > reduction in our budgetary expenditures for such items as
 >  > increased student enrollment. The CSU could be forced to deny
 >  > enrollment to the increasing number of anticipated students."
 >  > 
 >  > 
 >  > Workload
 >  > 
 >  > The administration argued against any need to reduce faculty
 >  > workload. The main argument, based on very questionable data, in
 >  > support of this position was that "The workload of CSU faculty is
 >  > less than the workload of faculty at other public comprehensive
 >  > institutions in the country."
 >  > 
 >  > Arguments that the current ratio of tenure-track to temporary
 >  > faculty is not a problem were also presented by the
 >  > administration. The main supporting data were national figures
 >  > used to suggest that the CSU patterns are in line with the
 >  > national average for the use of temporary faculty. (On rebuttal,
 >  > CFA pointed out that the administration's data included community
 >  > colleges and was, therefore, not appropriate for comparisons with
 >  > the CSU.)
 >  > 
 >  > 
 >  > Lecturer Issues
 >  > 
 >  > The administration argued against any improvement in job security
 >  > for long-term lecturers on several grounds. Several arguments
 >  > were based on comparisons with other CSU employees ("It would be
 >  > inequitable for temporary faculty to be granted further
 >  > enhancements to their status and benefits") and with other
 >  > temporary faculty around the country ("Comparable system-wide
 >  > faculty contracts do not provide temporary faculty the status or
 >  > benefits remotely equivalent to those currently enjoyed by CSU's
 >  > temporary faculty"). Improved job security is unnecessary also,
 >  > the administration argued, because lecturers can already
 >  > individually negotiate improvements if they choose.
 >  > 
 >  > The administration also reiterated its long-standing argument
 >  > that most lecturers have other jobs and, therefore, do not need
 >  > job security or health benefits from the CSU. In addition to
 >  > including an article titled "For Some Adjunct Faculty Members,
 >  > the Tenure Track Holds Little Appeal: Although many are unhappy
 >  > with their lot, others welcome the flexibility and freedom of
 >  > such jobs," the administration also offered the following to
 >  > support a claim that the same is true in the CSU: "Many of these
 >  > individuals have full-time employment outside the CSU and only
 >  > teach one or two courses per year in their field of expertise.
 >  > Hiring such individuals as lecturers allows students to benefit
 >  > from the hands-on knowledge of the workplace that many of these
 >  > experts possess. We know that 41% of all CSU Lecturers teach only
 >  > 1 course, and an additional 24% teach only 2 courses. This means
 >  > that 65% of the CSU Lecturer workforce contain faculty that may
 >  > not rely on the CSU as their primary employer."
 >  > 
 >  > 
 >  > 
 >  > CFA'S PRESENTATION
 >  > 
 >  > 
 >  > Compensation
 >  > 
 >  > To support the need for its proposals for a 2.5% GSI, step
 >  > increases, department chair increases, expanded lecturer health
 >  > insurance, and counselor salary conversion, CFA presented
 >  > evidence from:
 >  > 
 >  > 1)CPEC
 >  > 
 >  > 2) State Civil Service - steps are not charged against the
 >  > package for state employees
 >  > 
 >  > 3) Consumer Price Index - The CPI increased by 3.7% in 2001.
 >  > 
 >  > 4) CSU Management Compensation Increases - While CSU has insisted
 >  > on holding the compensation of some employees to 2%, it has seen
 >  > fit to reward its managers and executives at higher levels.
 >  > 
 >  > CFA also presented detailed information on the various sources of
 >  > faculty salary savings that could be used to fund increases above
 >  > 2%. Using data from CPEC, CFA demonstrated that the Faculty
 >  > Compensation Shortfall for 2001-02 alone is $17,239,389, more
 >  > than enough to fund CFA's proposals.
 >  > 
 >  > 
 >  > Faculty Early Retirement Program
 >  > 
 >  > To counter the long-standing CSU administration's position that
 >  > FERP eligibility should be reduced to three years and the
 >  > argument that FERP prevents the system from hiring tenure-track
 >  > faculty, CFA presented data to demonstrate that FERP actually
 >  > allows the hiring of more full-time equivalent faculty: If, for
 >  > example, three $80,000 full professors FERP at half-time, the
 >  > salary savings from their retirement ($120,000) makes possible
 >  > the hiring of two new tenure-track faculty at $50,000 each and 1
 >  > half-time lecturer ($20,000). Thus, 2.5 new faculty plus the 1.5
 >  > FERPs equals 4 FTEF working in the system.
 >  > 
 >  > 
 >  > Workload
 >  > 
 >  > CFA argued that, given the current budget situation, the parties
 >  > should establish tenure-track faculty hiring goals for each
 >  > contract year that realistically hold the prospect of increasing
 >  > the ratio of tenure track to lecturer hiring in the CSU. These
 >  > obligations would be triggered by specified improvements in the
 >  > portion of the University budget which provides funding for new
 >  > faculty hiring as a result of student enrollment growth, the
 >  > so-called "marginal cost" rate. CFA further proposed that the
 >  > Parties accept improvements of the marginal cost funding as a
 >  > join Budget/Legislative objective and priority.
 >  > 
 >  > 
 >  > Lecturer Issues
 >  > 
 >  > CFA presented arguments and data on the following lecturer issues:
 >  > 
 >  > * Job security - Increased job security will reflect the fact
 >  > that 36% of lecturers have been in the system for 6 or more years
 >  > and are not, in fact, temporary.
 >  > 
 >  > * Allocation of Lecturer Pay Raise Money to Departments - CFA
 >  > argued that the money negotiated for lecturer increases, like
 >  > that for tenure-track faculty, must actually arrive at the
 >  > department level to ensure that lecturers do not become "too
 >  > expensive" to be rehired
 >  > 
 >  > * Preference for available work - Within reasonable limited
 >  > related to a determination of an incumbent employee's
 >  > qualifications as determined by the department, CFA argued that
 >  > incumbents should be given preference for available work over
 >  > lecturers new to the CSU.
 >  > 
 >  > 
 >  > Family-Friendly Leave
 >  > 
 >  > CFA presented arguments on the following family-friendly issues:
 >  > 
 >  > * expansion of the definition of "family" to reflect current realities
 >  > * expand paid parental leave to one semester/two quarters
 >  > * ability to "stop the tenure clock" for birth or adoption of child
 >  > 
 >  > Year-Round Operations (YRO)
 >  > 
 >  > CFA presented arguments supporting the position that the CSU
 >  > should compensate faculty teaching in the Summer on the same
 >  > basis as they are compensated during other academic periods. All
 >  > other provisions of the contract should also be observed during
 >  > summer term.
 >  > 
 >  > 
 >  > 
 >  > 
 >  > *****************************
 >  > calfac-l: NEWS AND INFORMATION FOR CFA FACULTY ACTIVISTS
 >  > 
 >  > If you want to comment on this or any other faculty issue, please
 >  > point your browser to
 >  > .
 >  > 
 >  > You can read past calfac-l messages at
 >  > .
 >  > 
 >  > For changes in your subscription, please contact .
 >  > 
 >  > California Faculty Association
 >  > 310-641-4430 * fax: 310-410-1240 * www.calfac.org * cfa @calfac.org
 >  > 5933 W. Century Blvd. #220, Los Angeles, CA 90045
 >  > 
 >  > *****************************