In collective bargaining, AUFA has proposed comprehensive and recurring pay equity reviews on the basis of age, race/ethnicity, gender, gender identity and expression, and sexual orientation. This demand reflects preliminary evidence of significant pay inequities for new hires (2017-2020 inclusive) on the basis of gender.
AUFA polled its members on this proposal. There were 131 responses (so 32% of members voted). The results are:
99.2% supported AUFA’s proposal for periodic pay equity reviews.
Member comments about these proposals included:
AU keeps telling us how important EDI is to the institution. Pay equity is critical in terms of addressing this in a meaningful way. If AU rejects this proposal, there's no way any of us will be able to take their EDI talk seriously ever again. This one's absolutely a no-brainer.
I know that this is a problem, not just for me but other women, and I think it's important that the university do this. I know that some of my male colleagues who started around the same time I did make more money than I do.
Long past due. When was the last pay equity analysis completed? It should occur as a matter of routine every three years.
From the perspective of someone who benefits quite a bit from the current structure (and as one who didn't have to fight for it), I'd say it's good to rethink/reimagine the way it all works. It all should work for everyone and we have to ensure that it does.
I'm a little disgusted to see that binary gendered pay equity appears to be an issue here for new hires in the last three years.
Is concealing identities/salaries still important, when everyone who earns over $136K is on the provincial list in any case? Wouldn’t knowing colleague’s salaries not empower women and minorities and serve to end the inequalities not only in hiring salaries but also in salaries of staff who are presently employed?
AU's current approach to EDI is transparently about maintaining eligibility for Tricouncil grants. Addressing actual issues of inequity inside AU would be a welcome change of focus. But I have zero faith that AU has any interest in meaningfully engaging in particularizing and remedying long-standing inequities. What a terrible place this is to work. Such incredible hypocrisy between the promise of Imagine and the ugly reality of AU on a day-to-day basis. I would never recommend anyone take a job here. HR is the worst.
AU should provide the reports (easy, there is an IT department for that) in order for AUFA to be able to assist members who end up in that situation. AU should also provide AUFA access to data in order to verify the accuracy of those reports.
I do agree that AU's approach is flawed. Broader categories need to be included. It appears that they are selecting data that highlights that HR is doing well but doesn't reflect a longer term reality. We have employee with substantial years of service that would be making less if you factor their experience.
I would also like to see how the amount of service work falls across gender categories.
More dimensions than gender alone on pay equity need to be examined.
Please go back further. …I would think the differences in pay are equally problematic, if not worse, historically.
I am part of this horrific statistic. I came to AU with years of experience and the highest credentials. When I learned after a while that I was offered a lower starting salary then some of my male colleagues, I was appalled. There is a lack of transparency that needs to change. This pay inequity makes you question the value this institution sees in your work, and as an Assistant Professor you put endless hours, you want to perform. This situation is not only unfair, but it also destroys your motivation at work, and your trust in your institution.
Can't believe the university doesn't have this now. This is a "1960s" problem that should have been addressed years ago. Aren't universities supposed to be "smarter" than this?
Even prior to knowing the gravity of the disparity along gender lines, the starting salary at AU has been so disproportionately low that in my time here, I continue to actively look for academic positions at other institutions. AU's lack of investment in me compromises my investment in AU.
This sort of information should be publicly available. I felt I was at a disadvantage when I came in to negotiate because HR held all the cards. I didn't even know what a reasonable salary was. And I've since been told that my salary is comparable to other faculty - but it's not clear what those benchmarks are or what metrics they're using to indicate success.
I fully agree that we need to think beyond gender binaries which tend to benefit only white cisgender women. I also agree that categories such as age need to be considered. A troubling pattern amongst some of the newer hires of women-of-colour, for example, demonstrates that: 1) they bring significant years of experience in institutions, and are contributing in major ways to AU, well-beyond the norms Assistant Professor and 2) despite this, they are costing the university much less over the course of their careers at AU because they are being hired at an assistant (starting level) which means 3) that they are receiving inequitable pay over their tenure at AU and also reductions in pension compared to peers/colleagues.
I would suspect that pay inequity based on gender was even more prevalent the further back you are able to analyze data. I hope that a full picture review is able to be conducted and I fully support pay equity reviews on a periodic basis.
Thank you so much for doing all of this analysis work! The gender (and the other inequality issues you mention above) are very important to attend to in order to create a fare and safe working environment for all AU employees. I am very concerned at what I perceive is a large difference between the starting salaries of men vs. women in professional class C. I hope to see more research and updates on these issues in future.
I notice that it is up to the employee to be proactive regarding pay equity. Left to their own devices, the employer will try to underpay.
Even though I challenged my pay grade offer when I joined in 2019, I am still paid well under the average for a female, a full $11K less than the average male on the same role, and I am doing the work of an associate prof. and have been since I started work at AU. I bring needed EDI to my centre but somehow this is not recognized.
There is nothing wrong in transparency about equity. They teach kids that in elementary school.
I believe this has been a systemic issue over many years, not just recent? What are the implications for longer term people that got hired at lower salaries; slowed in promotion etc. due to gender? Is the view to rectify things moving forward; make any amends in any financial ways to those coming well before 2017?
Disability should be added to the equity review as this is also an important intersection of equity.
I have worked for 40 years at salaries less than my male counterparts. I'd like to see the next generation of employees treated equitably across the board... good luck!
The sunshine list also supports this analysis to some extent. I suspect this pattern also exists with excluded staff. Attention should also be paid to those staff in what are traditionally gendered jobs in terms of both pay and also classification inequities. Equity in classification and workload is the starting point that needs attention too.
I appreciate the inclusiveness of this proposal for everyone and hopefully this will even the playing field. Great work!
I have experienced first-hand pay inequity at AU. I was hired years before a male who started at the C level, same as me and was paid $6,000 more to start than I was making. I knew this because it showed on the letter of offer that HR thought by blacking it out with a sharpie and scanning it would work but you could see the amount that was offered. When I brought this up to the VP- Academic at the time she said upon her review that I was sufficiently compensated. I also brought this to AUFA's and HR's attention but nothing ever came of it.
Conduct the analysis by race, Indigenous status, age, disability status ...etc.
I strongly suggest a relevant specialist with a strong understanding of statistics in the area (equity, HR) who is independent be included in the review process. They would not need to be part of the equity committee (26.2.1), but their analysis would greatly benefit the committee's work. I do not know if the committee is already doing this in practice, but if you are suggesting additional wording to 26.2 please consider including the notion of some independent analysis to help inform.
Loooooong ovedue.
I agree that including other identity factors would be useful in investigating how the intersectionality of identities impacts on pay. An important point to that discussion however, is determining/ensuring that AU is an environment where people feel comfortable expressing these identities. We are aware that gender identity can't be examined in a vacuum, as other lived identities impact on opportunity and access as well, ie a disabled trans woman has different access than a cis able bodied woman. We want to believe that our colleagues feel safe to bring their whole selves into the work they do, and feel safe expressing their whole identities to colleagues and the employer. Despite Universities being viewed as quite liberal and progressive workplaces, my personal experience in AU has not always been reflective of that. There are pieces of my identity that I do not share with my colleagues or the employer as I believe it would impact on the way I am treated or could negatively impact my career. People not feeling safe to disclose would add challenge to determining how the intersectionality of identity impacts pay equity.
I think this is essential. Age discrimination through lack of benefits becomes serious after 65 and then again 71. It is a complex set of issues and while some benefits continue under government programs there is considerable savings to the employer. The biggest single problem relates to gender issues. Women tend to work longer because of responsibility for children and childrearing. Age and gender discrimination generally go hand in hand. Combine this with issues relating to colour and Indigenous status you have a complex issue that requires very careful consideration. We can argue to be an open university, but only open to tradition.
Thank you for this thoughtful article and proposal. I support periodic pay equity reviews, as long as they include more robust demographic information (aka beyond male/female, as you have effectively explained here)
I am disgusted by AU's failure to address these blatant salary disparities. If they think "equity" under Article 26 does not apply to salaries and benefits, what the f&*k does it mean? Will AU be sending me some shiny beads instead of paying me a fair salary?
The starting salary differences by gender were significantly greater than I expected.
This poll suggests that there is strong support for AUFA’s proposed periodic and comprehensive pay equity reviews.
This is not surprising. Not being discriminated against on the basis of personal characteristics is a fundamental human right.
Not discriminating is also consistent with AU’s i-Care value of Integrity: “We are guided by ethics, honest, and fairness in all out actions, engendering trust within out University community.”
It will be interesting to see if AU puts its money where its mouth is or if the i-Care values and AU’s EDI initiative are just smoke and mirrors.
Bob Barnetson, Chair
Job Action Committe