On Thursday, November 12th, University Administration sent out a Broadcast Message showing a comparison of UCHC clinical and basic science faculty salaries with those of the unionized faculty in eight medical schools in the US. The comparative data were presented as histograms and percentiles (25, 50, 75) within assistant, associate and full professor levels.
At the outset, we would like to state emphatically that the advantages of joining the AAUP go far beyond matters of compensation. Perhaps the most salient argument for collective bargaining is to establish a system of "checks and balances" regarding fundamental decisions and strategies that affect the ability of the Health Center to carry out its primary missions of education, research, and clinical care. Nonetheless, compensation is important and will be a part of collective bargaining.
The clinical salary histograms presented by the administration purport to show that, at each percentile and at each level, UCHC salaries range from $17,000-$56,000 greater than the clinical salaries of the unionized medical schools. Their comparisons of the basic science faculty show that at each percentile and at each level, UCHC salaries range from $6,000 less to $22,000 more than faculty at unionized medical schools. The conclusion that the administration wants you to draw is that unionized faculty do less well from the point of view of compensation than the UCHC medical faculty. There are however, several notes of caution in interpreting these comparisons:
(1) There is no indication whether the data presented is base salary only, base salary plus supplemental income or incentives. In many medical schools including unionized medical schools (UMDNJ) the base salary is only a part of the total compensation.
(2) How were these data combined across medical schools? For example, two low salary medical schools may be dragging down the composite salary levels. A breakdown for each school would have been more enlightening.
(3) No adjustment was made for the cost-of-living in these locations or median regional salaries. For example, it may cost much less to live in Buffalo than in the Hartford region.
(4) What is the distribution of disciplines and specialties in the unionized medical schools? One school may emphasize primary care, contributing to a significantly lower salary level than another in which tertiary care is the predominant mode.
(5) These comparisons are based on median salaries for one academic year. As a result, we are provided little understanding of the base salaries prior to unionization and the trajectory of raises over time as a result of collective bargaining.
(6) Finally, these nine medical schools stretching from Hawaii to New York, have very different histories and serve diverse missions. With an N so small, they present more diversity than can be summarized in median salaries in contrast to the AAMC tables representing more than 130 schools of medicine (see www.uchcaaup.org for AAMC salary data).
In summary, we need more data and analysis to fully assess the meaning of this comparison between unionized medical faculty and the UCHC medical school salaries. The conclusion that unionized medical faculty are less well compensated than the currently non-union UCHC faculty is highly questionable.
Addendum: Today, Dr. Winston Campbell sent an e-mail in which he points out that, according to the administrations data, that the 75th percentile for salaries of clinicians who are Assistant Professors at UCHC is higher than for those who are Associate Professors. Dr. Campbell notes that this is explained by "the fact that there are faculty at the Assistant Professor level who are focusing more on clinical work/productivity compared to someone at Associate Professor level who may have been focusing on academic advancement that impacted clinical work."
What does this information tell us about the activities of our clinical faculty? It would seem to suggest that those individuals who have been promoted to senior appointment are our true academicians while the junior-level faculty with little opportunity for promotion are more focused on revenue generation. Does this mean that those junior-level faculty who do get promoted and who are truly focused on academic medicine can expect to earn less, on average, than their more junior-level colleagues? Does it also mean that we have created a class of workers whose sole role is the "grunt work" of revenue generation" with higher compensation but with no hope of academic advancement.
The UCHC Faculty Association
.
Visit www.uchcaaup.org FAQ to read AAUP is a No Strike Union
Please visit the following links for information:
Why Organize
Clinicians SEE THIS PAGE
Frequently Asked Questions
UCHC Salaries
No comments:
Post a Comment