Analysis of MATC Compensation for Course Instruction

1. Analysis of MATC Compensation for Course Instruction August 2009 AFT-6100

2. Purpose • The purpose of this analysis is to ascertain the current status of compensation for course instruction at MATC, as well as the 10-year historic trends and three year forward projections for Part-time and Full-time instructor compensation.

3. Data Sources • The following sources of data were used in this analysis: • PT Faculty collective bargaining agreements 7/1/96 through the present. • FT Faculty collective bargaining agreements 1996 through the present. • AFT National data regarding average salary and value of benefits for full time instructors at MATC over past 10 years. • MATC General Fund Budget Input and Projections FY 2008-09 through FY 2010-11 • Data provided by Roger Price on 3/18/09 regarding MATC General Fund Totals by Account for fiscal years 2004 through 2008 • MATC Program and Services plans 2004 through 2008. • College mailroom data regarding number of current MATC personnel by employment category. • TAG data for Part-time faculty for Fall of 2008 and Spring of 2009.

4. Methodology- PT Compensation • Full Time equivalent = 10 courses per year, 50 contact hours per course. • Weighted average used for PT longevity and education level based on 08-09 TAG data. • Hourly rates pulled from past contracts. • No compensation assumed for professional development, mentoring, committees or other professional work. • Projections beyond 2008 based on MATC budget projections.

5. Methodology- FT Compensation • Wage and Benefit values derived from AFT-National data, cross referenced with General Fund data. • Projections beyond 2008 based on MATC budget projections. • For benefit cost projections, allocated portions of total benefit costs to FT faculty based on % of benefit eligible employees and % of total salary expenditures among benefit-eligible employees (for some benefits, allocated based on per-employee, for some benefits, allocated based on per salary dollar, depending on nature of benefit)

6. Methodology- Budget • Budget impact ascertained using MATC budget data and historic General Fund total data. • Total dollar cost of wages expressed as a percentage of operating budget. • Total cost of benefits expressed as a percentage of operating budget. Where needed, benefit costs allocated among benefit-eligible employees according to # of employees and/or total salary dollars for a class of employees.

7. Part time faculty pay for FT Equivalent workload. (500 hours/yr)

9. FT Wages and Benefits

11. Cumulative % increase in compensation 1997-1998 through 2007-2008

13. PT Wage as a % of FT wage

14. Difference between Annual compensation for FT faculty vs. PT Faculty teaching FT equivalent

15. Average Total Compensation per Course at 500 Contact Hours per Year (5 three-credit courses per semester)

16. Total compensation increase per course, FT vs. PT

17. Analysis • While the percentage increase in compensation over the last 10 years has been comparable between FT and PT faculty, the huge difference in compensation has gotten worse in terms of actual dollar amount. • This is because equivalent percentage increases do not yield equitable results when the percentage increases are applied to vastly disparate numbers (i.e. 3.5% of $100,000 is a lot more money than 3.5% of $10,000). Especially when these results are compounded over multiple years.

18. Budget Impact (current situation) • One Full Time Faculty member receiving a 1% increase in compensation would have a budget impact of $1256.25 • One Part time faculty member, teaching a full time equivalent load (500 hrs/yr), receiving a 1% increase in compensation would have a budget impact of $248.32. • If raises are based on a percentage increase, and the increase for the FT faculty is the same as for the PT faculty, full timers get $5 in raises for every $1 a part timer receives. • Applying that 1% raise to all faculty, the full time raise would cost MATC $298,226.00. The part time raise would cost MATC $54,954.00.

19. Budget Impact (continued) • The college does not charge different amounts for courses taught by part-timers. • By a rough projection based on TAG data, part timers currently teach 35% of courses. This does not include courses not included in the TAG system. • The annual increase in cost per course reflects HEAVY subsidization of full-time compensation increases on the backs of part-time faculty.

20. Additional Professional Work • Mentoring: • Full timer = 10% workload credit • Part timer = $250/semester • Professional Development • Full timer = 10% workload credit • Part timer = unpaid • Student interactions (advising, accommodating students with special needs, writing references) • FT = variable load credit • PT = unpaid • Service on outside boards • FT = variable load credit • PT = unpaid • Instructional design and delivery activities • FT = variable load credit • PT = sometimes paid • Committee work • FT = variable load credit • PT = sometimes paid

21. Proposed Method for Comparing Compensation for Additional Professional Work/ College Service • We believe that the 20% college service element of full time compensation is vastly overstated. • To compare FT and PT compensation, we propose to randomly select 30 full time faculty members and analyze the composition of their 20% “college service” load credit. • We believe that where direct comparisons are possible to the activities of PT faculty, the compensation gap will be even more pronounced. • We believe there will be many cases of full timers being compensated for work part timers do without any compensation by the college.

22. Various Proposals to Address Inequity in Compensation

23. FACE Legislation- AFT • Part-time/adjunct faculty should be paid a salary proportionate to that paid full-time tenured faculty of the same qualifications for doing the same work. The manner in which pro rata pay is calculated is a matter of institutional choice depending on the nature of the college or university. In general, however, these standards are organized around the principle of pairing fully proportionate professional responsibilities with fully proportionate compensation. 2. Part-time/adjunct faculty should receive pro-rated sick leave and pay for holidays and breaks. 3. Part-time/adjunct faculty should receive proportionate healthcare and pension benefits. 4. Part-time/adjunct faculty should be paid for holding office hours for student conferences. Full pro rata pay would address this problem if the calculation of pro rata includes office hours. In the absence of full pro rata pay, however, part-time/adjunct faculty should receive additional compensation to hold office hours. 5. In the absence of full pro rata pay, part-time/adjunct faculty who participate in institutional committee work should be compensated for doing so. 6. Part-time/adjunct faculty should have unemployment insurance available to them when they are not on the college payroll.

24. Incremental Closure of Compensation Gap • Without accounting for future raises, and using the 2008 numbers, closing the gap between full time and part time compensation would require that PT faculty receive a supplemental raise of $500/ course every year for the next 20 years. This is in addition to matching the full time pay increases for each course.

25. Stop Widening the Compensation Gap • To prevent the compensation gap from growing even wider, it is necessary lock the current difference. The only way to accomplish this is by taking the per-course dollar increase in full time compensation and giving PT faculty the same dollar amount increase for each course they teach. • Example: • Between 2006-07 and 2007-08, the average compensation (salary + benefits) for a FT faculty member increased from $110,184 to $116,314. Assuming 5 courses per semester, 10 courses per school year, this would be $613 per course taught. To avoid losing ground, PT faculty would need to receive $613 in additional compensation per course. • This would not reduce the gap between full time and part time compensation. This would only lock it in at its current difference of about $10,000 per course. • For budget purposes, the dollar increase in the cost of labor per course would be uniform whether the course was being taught by full time or part time faculty.

26. Economic proposals

27. Background Statements • Our members recognize the current economic recession and accept that any deal reached will take the state of the economy into account. • We support a deal that is fair for our members and for MATC. • We recognize that 20+ years of compensation inequity is not going to be rectified over a short period of time. • We do believe that the status quo is grossly unfair to our members. • We place a high value on finding a long term solution to the compensation problem. • We are open-minded and reasonable, and we believe a solution is possible.

28. AFT-6100 Member Survey Top Responses • Member Priorities (ranked very important or somewhat important) • Lump Sum Formula Components • Pay scale that reflects years of service- 93% • Base increase- 92% • Pay Scale that reflects education level- 83% • Pay scale that reflects number of students in course- 61% • Other • Seniority/rehire rights- 89% • Retirement benefits- 87% • Opportunities and compensation for meeting attendance- 87% • Guaranteed full-time job interviews for PT faculty- 82% • Paid Office Hours- 78% • Health Benefits- 72% • Dental- 70% • Office space- 68% • Additional Detail on TAG letters and pay stubs- 65%

29. PT Retirement Plan • Problem- • WRS system requirements limit participation by PT faculty. • WRS system rules become very complicated very quickly when employee is receiving contributions from multiple employers. • Retirement rules for WRS are problematic. • Supplemental contributions to WRS are problematic.

30. PT Retirement Plan (cont.) • Proposal- A Retirement Program for PT Faculty • Not WRS. All PT faculty included. • TSA or 401(k) • Administered by a third party financial services company. • Contributions by MATC for each PT faculty member equal to 5% of wages. • Faculty can make supplemental contributions (including option for payroll deduction). • 100% vesting on day one. • Not a replacement for WRS for those who do qualify for WRS.

31. Cost Calculator Spreadsheet Methodology • Cost calculator spreadsheet uses the TAG data spreadsheets for Fall 08 and Spring 09. • Front page allows input of: • Base Rate • Prep Factor • Longevity step increase • Longevity cutoff levels • Education step increase • Student minimum • Student Step • Calculates total cost using inputs as applied to the Fall and Spring TAG data. • Uses Formula [(Contact Hours + Student Factor) x Base Rate x Prep Factor x (Longevity factor + Education Factor)]

32. Wage Formula Factor Impacts • Base Rate: +1% = +1% • Prep Factor: +1% = +.8% • Longevity Step: +1% = +1.06% • Changing longevity cutoffs: variable, minor impacts • Education Step Increase: +1% = +.5% • Student factor changes: variable impacts

33. Back End Load Impact/ Incremental implementation Impact • $221,593.46 worth of wage increase for Fall locked in by Spring 09 wage increases, even without further raises. • Spreadsheet can be easily modified to Cost a multi-phased implementation if the union has been provided with accurate operating budget projections for 09-10 and 10-11. Inaccurate data will result in a loss of functionality for the “Budget impact” portion of the spreadsheet.

34. Cost Calculator Presentation • Demonstration

35. Validation Requirements • To validate the analysis provided in this report, in the event it is disputed, we would require full access to college payroll data, as requested in our initial Bargaining Request for Information.

36. Economic items desired- on table • Wage increases • Benefits • Free Bus passes for PT Faculty • Free Access to MATC events and Facilities • Addition of the MFA degree to the PhD equivalents for purposes of TAG formula. • Compensation for attending Certification Courses • Increase in per-student rates for video courses

37. AFT-6100 Proposal • Presented by Morris Andrews