Compression / Inversion Report

1. Compression / Inversion Report UFF Summary/Interpretation

2. C & I History • 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.

3. What are Salary Compression and Inversion? • 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.

4. Why? • 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:

5. Examples of C&I: Actual Salaries

6. Examples of C&I: Actual Salaries

7. Report Findings • 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.

8. Methods • 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

9. Rank Ratio Analysis • 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)

10. Regression Analysis • Predicts what salary “should be” • 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 • Develops different regression equations to predict salaries for different disciplines and different “ranks” • 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 • Considered in the C&I literature (and by the consulting firm) to a better method than rank-ratio. • Looks at salaries internal to FGCU only, not compared to other universities. • Not a market study, we have done two of those previously

11. Regression • 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

12. Dispersion around “Best Fit” for Most Disciplines 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

13. Dispersion around “Best Fit” Problems 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

14. University-Wide Faculty Salaries Compared to New Instructors 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.

15. Health Professions 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

16. Business Regression Equation Predictions using average salaries • Avgsalaries 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.

17. Predicted vs. Actual Salary Comparisons for an Individual Person 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 ranktimes years at rank modifier + years*rank mod • Predicted Salary Predicted Salary • Actual current salary - current salary • Desired adjustment $

18. Example of How to Compute, NOT Actual Salaries

19. Sample Predictions and Differences between Predicted and Current Salary

20. Final Note • Is the study perfect? • 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. • Should we have done it a different way • 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. • By all means, continue to identify and report to UFF and Administration your concerns with your experience with C&I. • I hope that these reports will influence FGCU NOT to sweep the issue under the unexamined findings of the study.