Back to TheU.ca
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Banned Users List
Usergroups
RSS Feeds
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log inTheU.ca Forum Index - General Discussion - Teacher Strike? - Reply to topic
Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 Next
|
Surprised there no talk about this on here... What's everyone thought? 25% increase in salary? If you haven't heard go to STFX.ca and go under Human Ressources and then theres a link side menu for Negotiations |
|
Senther
Xtalk Drifter  Joined: 29 Jun 2006 Posts: 2296 Location: The Deadlights    votes: 42 View user's profile |
Here for those interested. I don't have a well-reasoned stance yet. I'm not the biggest fan of unions, but the professors here are terribly underpaid, considering. _________________ To avoid complications, she never kept the same address In conversation, she spoke just like a baroness |
|
Jimmy Big Ears
X-talk mobster  Joined: 13 Sep 2006 Posts: 3256 Location: St. Francis Xavier University  votes: 38 View user's profile |
Considering some other places? Yes. Considering some other jobs? No, but that's true of a lot of jobs. Of course, the people who really get screwed are the part-time lecturers unless they have another good job like Carol Gillies. "The University’s current compensation offer in the first year is $8500 for a six credit course, increasing to $8750 in the second year and $9000 in the third year. This represents a 12.5% increase over the three years of the proposed agreement." I wish they would do something like raising their pay and compensating for it by getting X number of profs to teach an extra class every second year, with different groups alternating years. It would be far from ideal but better than making the students eat another fee increase. The other point I think is worth raising is why is this issue being raised now, rather than years ago or in a couple of years? This is far from the best time to do this. On compensation numbers it is worth noting that they include the value of pensions, health benefits, and a number of other things. It is not describing their salary; sort of like when the US auto workers' negotiations were going on and they were talking about workers making $65,000 a year. It was the gross value of salary plus all benefits. _________________ "Ah, sleek vigilant puma. Principal of the mountains." -Seymour Skinner. |
|
Lock
Russia's greatest love machine  Joined: 09 Jul 2009 Posts: 752 Location: The wrong place  votes: 6 View user's profile |
Jimmy Big Ears wrote: The other point I think is worth raising is why is this issue being raised now, rather than years ago or in a couple of years? This is far from the best time to do this. I haven't been following this at all so I don't know if this applies here, but employers often pick harder economic times to negotiate contracts because they think they can get more concessions from their employees that way.
|
|
Senther
Xtalk Drifter Joined: 29 Jun 2006 Posts: 2296 Location: The Deadlights votes: 42 View user's profile |
Tying the compensation to teaching extra classes is a horrible idea, but sadly one that (some) Arts profs might embrace. Research is too downtrodden at this place as it is. _________________ To avoid complications, she never kept the same address In conversation, she spoke just like a baroness |
|
""The University’s current compensation offer in the first year is $8500 for a six credit course, increasing to $8750 in the second year and $9000 in the third year. This represents a 12.5% increase over the three years of the proposed agreement." " I'm missing something. The average arts prof teaches 3 courses a semester, that's 27000 dollars a year for a third year professor..? Wahhh? |
|
Jimmy Big Ears
X-talk mobster Joined: 13 Sep 2006 Posts: 3256 Location: St. Francis Xavier University votes: 38 View user's profile |
That compensation figure is for the part-time lecturers, who get a raw deal. Lock wrote: Jimmy Big Ears wrote: The other point I think is worth raising is why is this issue being raised now, rather than years ago or in a couple of years? This is far from the best time to do this. I haven't been following this at all so I don't know if this applies here, but employers often pick harder economic times to negotiate contracts because they think they can get more concessions from their employees that way.I actually was not suggesting tying compensation to classes (although it has some merits) but rather thinking that a certain percentage (10% for example) could do an extra class for half a term in a given year. I do not think it is optimal but things are pretty tight. _________________ "Ah, sleek vigilant puma. Principal of the mountains." -Seymour Skinner. |
|
Senther
Xtalk Drifter Joined: 29 Jun 2006 Posts: 2296 Location: The Deadlights votes: 42 View user's profile |
Yes, so all of the professors who tend their gardens and drag down our credibility can have some extra spending money. _________________ To avoid complications, she never kept the same address In conversation, she spoke just like a baroness |
|
Lock
Russia's greatest love machine Joined: 09 Jul 2009 Posts: 752 Location: The wrong place votes: 6 View user's profile |
Jimmy Big Ears wrote: That compensation figure is for the part-time lecturers, who get a raw deal. That's exactly what I mean. They know they'll have to renegotiate it sooner or later, and if the do it now they can use the "times are tight" argument which they might not be able to use a year from now.
Lock wrote: Jimmy Big Ears wrote: The other point I think is worth raising is why is this issue being raised now, rather than years ago or in a couple of years? This is far from the best time to do this. I haven't been following this at all so I don't know if this applies here, but employers often pick harder economic times to negotiate contracts because they think they can get more concessions from their employees that way. |
|
Jimmy Big Ears
X-talk mobster Joined: 13 Sep 2006 Posts: 3256 Location: St. Francis Xavier University votes: 38 View user's profile |
Senther wrote: Yes, so all of the professors who tend their gardens and drag down our credibility can have some extra spending money. Didn't you just say they weren't paid enough?
_________________ "Ah, sleek vigilant puma. Principal of the mountains." -Seymour Skinner. |
|
Senther
Xtalk Drifter Joined: 29 Jun 2006 Posts: 2296 Location: The Deadlights votes: 42 View user's profile |
I said that Professors weren't paid enough. That doesn't mean that we should implement salary raises that only benefit those who don't bring in funding or produce HQ Personnel. That's regressive enough to qualify as injustice. _________________ To avoid complications, she never kept the same address In conversation, she spoke just like a baroness |
|
Jimmy Big Ears
X-talk mobster Joined: 13 Sep 2006 Posts: 3256 Location: St. Francis Xavier University votes: 38 View user's profile |
It is possible for a professor to produce great students (HQ Personnel? Just guessing) with an extra class. Also, it is perfectly possible for a prof to bring in funding anyway, although their probability of success for that term decreases, no doubt, and they would have to take deadlines into account. I remember my grandfather talking about his work binges when time came around for grant apps for his experiments with rats. The extra-three-credit-class-per-year idea is not a great solution, but what is? Charging higher tuition? The problem is that there are lumps to be taken, and students have taken too many already. At a lot of universities (albeit chiefly non-Maritime ones) the (tenured) professors have taken comparatively few. I am not saying that professors here are overpaid - they might well earn less than at Ontario schools - just that for tough times they have a pretty good deal. _________________ "Ah, sleek vigilant puma. Principal of the mountains." -Seymour Skinner. |
|
The compensation mentioned earlier refers to just salary. You get paid by the course if you're part-time, so that's what the $8500 or so refers to. It (the $8500) doesn't include benefits; that would be a separate matter. Regular (full time) faculty get paid a salary based on a scale. It's much higher than the per course stipend and takes into consideration that they are expected to do research, supervise students and do administrative work. Benefits, such as pension, health and so forth are separate from this as well. Faculty can also teach on overload and get the per course stipend for the extra course(s), but that usually only happens in emergencies or special situations. As to why now, well, the contract has expired. By the way, HQ refers to Highly Qualified. The term Highly Qualified Personnel is something NSERC looks at when evaluating reserach grant proposals. |
|
I was just talking about this last night with one of my profs. From what he said the profs at X get paid 12% lower than their comparitive universities...some of which include CBU, Mount St.VInvent, UPEI, Acadia, and I think he said Mt.A as well. He seemed very confident that there would be no strike and even if there was it would hardly last a day. |
|
Senther wrote: I said that Professors weren't paid enough. That doesn't mean that we should implement salary raises that only benefit those who don't bring in funding or produce HQ Personnel. That's regressive enough to qualify as injustice.
Although I'm not against research, how does a grant or HQ personnel translate into improvements in the class room? Is it expected the HQ personnel will teach? Does some of the grant money go to the university or is it just hopeful that research will lure in private donations? |
|
Teachers get paid to teach but, depending on department, they also get paid for contributing research to the school. I'm pretty sure there are some profs here who do not consider teaching their first priority. That being said, profs with less of a focus on research don't make much money from my understanding. I had an English teacher in first year who said he had to take a pay -cut to move from a high-school job to STFX. I don't think there would be a strike here either though. X seems like a school far too concerned with its image to let something like that happen. _________________ Hi, I'm Troy McClure. You might remember me from such self-help videos as "Smoke Yourself Thin", and "Get Confident, Stupid" |
|
Troy McClure wrote: I don't think there would be a strike here either though. X seems like a school far too concerned with its image to let something like that happen. Agree with this. |
|
Senther
Xtalk Drifter Joined: 29 Jun 2006 Posts: 2296 Location: The Deadlights votes: 42 View user's profile |
pedal2000 wrote: Although I'm not against research, how does a grant or HQ personnel translate into improvements in the class room? Is it expected the HQ personnel will teach? Does some of the grant money go to the university or is it just hopeful that research will lure in private donations?
Some grant money goes to the school, I don't know the specific fractions. Producing HQ personnel (that phrase is indelibly printed in my head unfortunately) is one of the greatest functions of a professor, as far as I'm concerned (and I doubt I'm alone). I realize that for some departments all of the learning available takes place in a classroom setting, but it doesn't have to (and shouldn't) be that way. This isn't highschool, and students should expect their education to be more robust than powerpoint slides. Research bestows prestige on a school, but more than that, if you make StFX into a place hostile to research, you start depriving yourself of good professors. _________________ To avoid complications, she never kept the same address In conversation, she spoke just like a baroness |
|
OK, some facts on faculty pay. This post refers to just full-time faculty and the just-expired contract. We have three categories of professor (assistant, associate and full) and one category called lecturer (which is usually a much smaller group). In each professor category, there is a salary scale. For assistants, there are 12 steps on it, for associates, there are17 and for full there are 18. Typically a person starts as an assistant prof, usually on step 2-3 or 4, depending on previous experience in teaching and research. They usually remain an assistant for 5 years, and in the fifth year apply for tenure and promotion to associate. Such promotion depends, in the case of tenure, on promise of excellence in teaching and research (the details, and there are many, are found in the contract). Promotion is based on the demonstration of that excellence. I'm leaving a lot out, but you get the idea. Tenure may be, and often is, granted without promotion, in which case the person may apply again for promotion. Tenure can only be applied for once. If promoted, an assistant prof steps over onto the associate ladder. Eventually, promotion to full professor can be applied for. Your rank, and ultimately, your salary (since the ladders overlap) depend therefore on this promotion process. Promotion depends on your teaching/research/service. It doesn't depend on your department, as someone seemed to suggest earlier. Getting promoted (or tenured) involves and assessment of your performance by a committee of your department, and then a further assessment by the Rank and Tenure Committee (to ensure university-wide standards), followed by the recommendation to the President, who technically does the granting of tenure and promotions. Now, I need a nap. For the masochistic, the text of the contract (216 pages, involving 6 employment groups) can be found on the Human Resources website. |
TheU.ca Forum Index - General Discussion - Teacher Strike? - Reply to topic
