We wanted to take a moment to update you on our negotiation. Below are the highlights of the compensation plan we presented to the Administration in July of 2019. As you can see, most of the items below are the same or similar to what our legacy Rutgers peers already received in April. This plan would go a long way towards solving inequities in pay.
Academic Base Increases Proposes same 4-year across the board increase (ATB) as received by Rutgers AAUP-AFT (faculty on the main campuses) and other unions. The administration’s February 2019 proposal contained a 2% pool for merit increases for only 3-years. Our position is that until there is a method whereby merit increases can be administrated fairly, we should have ATBs instead.
Minimum Salaries: Our proposal sets AAMC “All Schools” medians for faculty members in all basic science departments and for RWJMS clinical faculty. The administration has no such provision in their proposal.
Automatic Cuts: The union categorically rejected this. The administration proposes to cut overall salaries by between 10-12% of any faculty member based on subjective determinations concerning professionalism.
Out-of-Cycle: Adopts same out-of-cycle language as Rutgers AAUP-AFT. Recently, in their new contract, out-of-cycle can be also used for equity purposes. We adopted this approach. The administration’s February proposal does not make changes to how out-of-cycle increases work.
Equity Committee: Our proposal calls for the establishment of an equity committee to study compensation inequities and make recommendations to the Chancellor and other Rutgers leadership on how to close any gaps based on compression or gender. This provision also requires departments to conduct an evaluation of salary inequity every two years and report their findings to the committee. The AAMC’s recent report on compensation recommends the establishment of an equity committee. It states curing gender inequity is not a “one-and-done” process and requires continuing efforts. The RBHS Faculty Council also endorsed such an idea in their white paper.
UPA/NJMS: Our proposal uses a Variable Supplement (based on prior two years of collections) that guarantees compensation for NJMS Clinical Faculty for 2-years after UPA ceases to collect revenue. It guards against downside risk associated with a switch in revenue collectors. Finally, it attempts to maintain the faculty’s voice in the practice. By contrast, the Administration proposes a Variable Supplement that is only for 1-year and provides for no say in how the practice is governed. It also does not protect the faculty member from downside risk.
Extramural Incentive: Proposes increases to current program. Proposes an rFTe based pilot for those who vote to use such a pilot.
Clinical Incentive: We propose more transparency, that the gap between productivity and pay benchmarks (PIMO) be fully funded, and that contract clinical and other faculty receive lump sums. We also think there should be a better appeal process for decisions concerning benchmarking and cFTE. The administration’s proposal exempts tenured faculty members from the CIP. In addition, it proposes a pool of only $3 million for all of RBHS. Total PIMOs in FY 2018 RWJMS alone was $3.8 million. Hence, more funds are needed