The Impact of the Administration’s Economic Proposals: Benefits
July 21, 2017
Dear Colleagues,
In recent communiqués we explained why we have no confidence in the administration’s budget projections and demonstrated how their flawed methodology dramatically overstates the size of deficits Rider will experience.
In this and the communiqués to follow we will analyze the impact of the administration’s economic proposals. Sometime soon we will survey all of our members, asking you how the administration’s proposed changes will affect you, your department, and the quality of the education we provide to our students.
Analysis of Administration’s Benefits Proposal
In today’s communiqué, we analyze the administration's proposed changes to your benefits.
How did we compare to our peers?
We’ll first examine the same peer group the administration chose for its comparison of instructional cost—Monmouth, FDU, St. Joseph’s, Stockton, Montclair, and TCNJ. Though FDU no longer participates in the AAUP compensation survey, all the others do.
Before we apply the administration’s proposed changes, Rider ranks fourth out of six (See Table 1*).
Table 1: 2016–17 Average Benefits Cost Per Full Time Faculty Member at Administration-Chosen Peer Institutions
School Cost*
TCNJ $48,660.00
St. Joseph's $34,610.00
Stockton $32,920.00
Rider $30,860.00
Monmouth $29,500.00
Montclair $28,600.00
* Calculations based on the AAUP publication “The Annual Report on the Economic Status of the Profession 2016–17”
If we were to include other comparable institutions, e.g., Marist and Manhattan College, Rider’s present position continues to be near the bottom (See Table 2). And that is before we apply the administration’s proposed changes.
Table 2: Average Benefits Cost Per Full Time Faculty Member at Eight Peer Institutions
School Cost*
TCNJ $48,660.00
Manhattan $38,970.00
Marist $35,910.00
St. Joseph's $34,610.00
Stockton $32,920.00
Rider $30,860.00
Monmouth $29,500.00
Montclair $28,600.00
Imagine where we would rank if the administration’s proposed benefits had been in place during the 2016–17 year? The answer is very concerning, to say the least:
The administration proposal:
Thus, if the administration’s benefits proposal had been in place last year, we estimate that the average value of our benefits per full-time faculty member would have been approximately $17,000 or circa 60% of our lowest peer. That’s the equivalent of over a $13,000 cut in pay for each full-time faculty member.
And this would be on top of over a million dollars in reduced development support, total elimination of benefits for long serving adjunct faculty, reductions in minimum salaries and a 33% increase in teaching workload.
The administration assures us that if we accept their proposal, these drastic moves will not have a negative impact on our ability to retain and recruit top-notch faculty. We strongly disagree with this point of view and think that if Rider faculty were to accept such conditions, it would destroy the quality of our programs and our ability to recruit and retain the high-quality faculty that have lifted this university to its present status.
Your Negotiating Team,
Mike Brogan
Dave Dewberry
Herb Gishlick
Jeff Halpern
Joel Phillips
Elizabeth Scheiber
Arthur Taylor
July 21, 2017
Dear Colleagues,
In recent communiqués we explained why we have no confidence in the administration’s budget projections and demonstrated how their flawed methodology dramatically overstates the size of deficits Rider will experience.
In this and the communiqués to follow we will analyze the impact of the administration’s economic proposals. Sometime soon we will survey all of our members, asking you how the administration’s proposed changes will affect you, your department, and the quality of the education we provide to our students.
Analysis of Administration’s Benefits Proposal
In today’s communiqué, we analyze the administration's proposed changes to your benefits.
How did we compare to our peers?
We’ll first examine the same peer group the administration chose for its comparison of instructional cost—Monmouth, FDU, St. Joseph’s, Stockton, Montclair, and TCNJ. Though FDU no longer participates in the AAUP compensation survey, all the others do.
Before we apply the administration’s proposed changes, Rider ranks fourth out of six (See Table 1*).
Table 1: 2016–17 Average Benefits Cost Per Full Time Faculty Member at Administration-Chosen Peer Institutions
School Cost*
TCNJ $48,660.00
St. Joseph's $34,610.00
Stockton $32,920.00
Rider $30,860.00
Monmouth $29,500.00
Montclair $28,600.00
* Calculations based on the AAUP publication “The Annual Report on the Economic Status of the Profession 2016–17”
If we were to include other comparable institutions, e.g., Marist and Manhattan College, Rider’s present position continues to be near the bottom (See Table 2). And that is before we apply the administration’s proposed changes.
Table 2: Average Benefits Cost Per Full Time Faculty Member at Eight Peer Institutions
School Cost*
TCNJ $48,660.00
Manhattan $38,970.00
Marist $35,910.00
St. Joseph's $34,610.00
Stockton $32,920.00
Rider $30,860.00
Monmouth $29,500.00
Montclair $28,600.00
Imagine where we would rank if the administration’s proposed benefits had been in place during the 2016–17 year? The answer is very concerning, to say the least:
The administration proposal:
- Reduces pension contributions by $1,059,000
- Reduces medical insurance and Bene-save contributions by $1,246,000
- Eliminates external tuition remission (taking from our members $988,000)
Thus, if the administration’s benefits proposal had been in place last year, we estimate that the average value of our benefits per full-time faculty member would have been approximately $17,000 or circa 60% of our lowest peer. That’s the equivalent of over a $13,000 cut in pay for each full-time faculty member.
And this would be on top of over a million dollars in reduced development support, total elimination of benefits for long serving adjunct faculty, reductions in minimum salaries and a 33% increase in teaching workload.
The administration assures us that if we accept their proposal, these drastic moves will not have a negative impact on our ability to retain and recruit top-notch faculty. We strongly disagree with this point of view and think that if Rider faculty were to accept such conditions, it would destroy the quality of our programs and our ability to recruit and retain the high-quality faculty that have lifted this university to its present status.
Your Negotiating Team,
Mike Brogan
Dave Dewberry
Herb Gishlick
Jeff Halpern
Joel Phillips
Elizabeth Scheiber
Arthur Taylor