SALARY AND COMPENSATION STRUCTURE AT TRUMAN

A preliminary report and suggestions for improvement Truman Today announced this summer salary increases for faculty andstaff for 1998-99. While the payment of $1,200 for full-time faculty, and the 3 to 5 percent increases for staff, depending upon salary levels seems progressive at first blush, I hope we realize how the salary levels, the compensation structure, and this year's increases continue to inflict on us the egregious anomalies of the past. To show how that is so, I include here some examples. Please note that all the information I provide here is publicly available and that I am not divulging or disclosing any "private" or "personal" information. #1. Some of our newly hired secretaries, grounds-keepers, etc., among the lowest paid, made about $ 14,768 as of July 1, 1997. With a 5 percent increase, their pay increases by about $ 738. (I was informed by David Rector, the Budget Director, that those earning less than $20,000 would get a 5 percent increase, those earning between $20,000 and $ 50,000 get a 4 percent increase, and those earning $50,000 and above would get a 3 percent increase.) The president, Jack Magruder's salary was $135,000 as of July 1, 1997. With a 3 percent increase his salary (please note that the $135,000 salary is as of July 1, 1997; there was a further increase in August, 1997, and yet another this year) increases by $ 4,050. So, as you can see, the income disparity between our lowest paid and highest paid has really increased this year. That we, in a Liberal Arts institution, reflect and follow the "trend" set by industry and other profit-oriented organizations in our society is extremely disturbing. #2. Faculty salaries are yet another cause for concern. Many of my colleagues in the Business Division continue to earn the kind of salaries that make a mockery of our claim that we are a Liberal Arts university. For example, Paul Fellows, who joined the faculty in 1991, the same year as I did, earned $ 68,486 in 1997 in comparison to my earnings of $ 38,980  almost $30,000 more! This year therefore, with the 3 percent increase and the $1200 lump sum payment, I get a total of $ 2,369. Dr. Fellows gets $3,254. A difference of almost $ 900. Moreover Prof. Fellows teaches just three classes per semester (like many in the Business Division) unlike most of us who teach four classes per semester. This is what we call a 3-3 or a 4-4 load. Factoring that information you will see that Dr. Fellows makes more than twice as much as I do!!! If you calculate his salary as per a 4-4 load, his salary is actually $91,314! So, once again, we have a case of increasing disparity of incomes/earnings. The budget that the Board has okayed therefore doesn't even represent a status quo; instead, it is regressive. And do we have to wonder why there are no business faculty in the AAUP? #3. Dr. Larsen, hired as an assistant professor by the Business Division in 1995, earned a salary of $ 54,600 in 1997. Dr. Shirley Morahan, professor of English, who joined the university in 1976, made $52,190! Twenty years of additional experience and a full professorship means this?! I believe this could be termed a travesty. #4. Dr. Woehlk, Head of the Division of Language & Literature, who oversees more than a hundred faculty and GTRAs earned about $ 84,570 in 1997, the same amount as Dr. Miller, the Head of the Education Division, who oversees about 15 faculty, one-third of whom are really in other Divisions! Isn't it time to correct this anomaly? However, I have been consistently stymied in my efforts at bringing up this issue. Dr. Candy Young, in the UGC summer workshop in 1997, basically shut me up when I raised the issue. I pointed out that the behemoths like L&L, Social Science, and Science divisions, for example, should consider a departmental structure. I hate to bring the matter up here, but this is something AAUP should seriously tackle. There are many more anomalies that I can point out. For reasons of space and brevity, I have included only these four. I am not trying to advocate here a socialist agenda where everyone earns the same pay! Instead, I am pointing out how this administration, from which I expected progressive ideas and measures, is not really working hard to correct these rather disturbing features of pay and compensation. Creativity and vision are required from leaders and managers if we are to have even a semblance of equity. To set the ball rolling, I propose below a salary/compensation package/formula that might interest you: 1) Starting salaries for communication assistant professors this year is about $33,000. Let us say, hypothetically, this is the lowest salary level at which assistant professors have entered Truman. 2) We can have a second rung of faculty entering at a 10 percent higher rate. This would be $36,300. Let us, again hypothetically, say that these are faculty teaching in the Social Science division. 3) We can have the third rung entering with an additional 10 percent. This would be at the $39,600 level. These could be Math and Science faculty. 4) Then we have the elite. The business faculty. Let us give them another 10 percent more. This means they start with $42,900. However, and most importantly, all faculty get an annual increase that is not percentage based but a flat sum. Thus, let us say, on an average, over 30 years, the annual increase is $1,500. So, an English or Communication professor, with a $5,000 increase when promoted to associate level, and another $5,000 when promoted to the full professor level, should be retiring after 30 years with a salary of $98,000; a social science professor retiring at $101,300; a science professor at $104,600; and the business professor with $107,600. And for heavens sake, can we push for equality in course load??? 5) We can come up with a similar formula for staff and administration. One formula could be that the President of the university shall make no more than 10 times the salary earned by the lowest paid staff. Thus, if the lowest pay at Truman is $15,000 the president should not earn more than $150,000. All raises for staff and administration should also be in equal lump sums and not percentage based. Thus, a secretary entering at $15,000 and having an annual $1,500 increase, should expect to retire at $45,000 and any additional amount earned due to promotions. 6) Those who come in as ABDs should start at 10 percent below the $33,000 level. They should be allowed no more than 2 years to complete their Phds. We now have people taking 7 years to complete their dissertations, and they make about $2,000 less than those with Phds. Thus, I have colleagues who have been promoted to the associate level with no more scholarly activity than just working on their dissertations! Thus, those who come in with Phds are not rewarded enough for their work prior to entering Truman and after entering Truman! Closepet N. Ramesh, Ph.D.

-- Anonymous, October 28, 1998

Answers

Ramesh, you have a good point. I don't know what the "answer" is, but there is one thing I do know. I'd like to see the reasoning behind and a justification for our salary levels and our courses loads. These very important decisions are being made, yet no one appears to be accountable.

-- Anonymous, November 24, 1998

Ramesh,

As a colleague, you know I agree with virtually everything you have laid out here -- certainly these kinds of questions should be posed. And answered.

A couple of small points. If the president's salary increases by 3%, and a secretary's salary increases by 5%, then the discrepancy is actually decreasing, on a percentage basis, which I think would be the fair way to describe it (as you imply later with your 10X maximum discrepancy proposal). I would also point out that the business faculty salaries offered here are not out of line with national comparisons (we both have acquaintances who teach in b-schools). I do feel that those high salaries could be far better justified if our b-school would offer a business minor (yes, some actual service to the student population at large). And I certainly agree that careful thought on the part of the administration should be given to both overall faculty load averages as well as salary structure--something I don't sense is done here.

Given the quality of instruction here, and accolades earned by the university in the national press every year, is it unreasonable to expect that faculty at Truman be paid on a scale at least equaling -- perhaps slightly above -- the state average? And I would include summer pay in that consideration.

-- Anonymous, December 18, 1998

Regarding salary, I came in on the old system and received tenure at the end of my fourth year (tenure decision at the end of 3rd year), two years before my promotion to Associate Professor at the end of my 6th year. My current salary at the rank of full Professor (promoted at the end of 14th year) is about $8,000 below the national average for chemistry professors at public non-PhD schools (nine-month contract). The two most senor full Professors of Chemistry (with more than 25 years on faculty) are making exactly at the national average as defined above. All of us came in under the old system. After 15 peer-reviewed publications, excellent teaching and advising evaluations, and the national presidency of my profession (President, American Institute of Chemists, 1996-1997), I am scandalized in the true spiritual/Biblical sense of the word. . . . If it were not for the commitment I have made spiritually, emotionally, and financially .... I would leave here in a New York minute and capitalize on my national reputation and recognition to secure a college position somewhere where Id feel appreciated.

-- Anonymous, January 31, 1999

As a reply to Closepet Ramesh, let me pose a rhetorical question. Why don't we dispense with all job category distinctions and simply pay all Truman employees the same salary? What is the point of qualifying the plea for equity with provisions that divide people up into different classes who will receive higher and lower compensation? Surely the answer is that were we to offer all employees the same pay, we would have the world's best paid janitors and no University President. In dividing the faculty into four tiers, Professor Ramesh makes a concession to a labor market that values some activities more highly than others with the supply and demand for workers with different skill sets determining the valuation. But being only partial, the concession is largely pointless. Truman would have the same rate of success in hiring Ph.D.'s in Marketing with an offer of $25,000 (i.e., a rate that might be consistent with paying all University employees the same amount) as it would with Professor Ramesh's proposal to offer $42,900. No Marketing Ph.D. would accept either offer. I speak with some authority being the Larsen he refers to and having had other offers the year I came to Truman for amounts much higher than $42,900. Labor markets have an iron logic. One can, if one wishes, pay above the market rate and successfully hire and retain employees. One cannot pay below the market rate and stay staffed. People will have an take other options. Turning to the course load of people in the Business Division, there, too, Professor Ramesh largely misses the point. The critical question is not how many courses one teaches but how many students one carries. The FTE's of professors in Business are a third again higher than the University average in 1999. In other words, Business professors carry more students in three classes than most other professors carry in four. If other Divisions want to reorganize, teaching fewer sections with more students in each section, they are certainly welcome to do so. I doubt that Professor Ramesh will conclude that they have received a major salary increase if they do reorganize courses in this way.

-- Anonymous, October 28, 1999

Please see the AAUP Newsletter, "Spotlight," October, 2000 for specific information on a number of issues regarding faculty compensation at Truman.

http://www2.truman.edu/aaup/ http://www2.truman.edu/aaup/AAUP_TSU_news.html

- GJ

-- Anonymous, December 12, 2000