The sunshine list

jacee · March 31, 2015

Just how many people in any profession or job, public or private, get to take a year off with full pay every seven years like professors? .

It's not a year "off", and not full salary:

https://uwaterloo.ca/environment/faculty-staff/policies-procedures/sabbatical-application-procedures

Edited March 31, 2015 by jacee

Bob Macadoo · March 31, 2015

Given university professors don't do much teaching nowadays anyway it is indeed useless. And who says they need brains to do their jobs? Just let the TAs do everything, like normal.

....shows your knowledge.....again. Sabbaticals weren't so the profs could hide out in their offices.....it was so they could travel to further their research.....like visit foreign labs, do environmental data gathering, do a sociological study of foreign culture, etc. Thinking like yours is exactly why academia is seen as it is........pure base ignorance.

Argus · April 1, 2015

....shows your knowledge.....again. Sabbaticals weren't so the profs could hide out in their offices.....

I didn't say or suggest that was their purpose. I asked what other profession got a year off on pay.

it was so they could travel to further their research.....like visit foreign labs, do environmental data gathering, do a sociological study of foreign

culture, etc. Thinking like yours is exactly why academia is seen as it is

And yet whatever research he intended to do was so lacking in importance that he decided to forego it in exchange for doubling up his salary, yes?

So he was paid that extra year's worth of salary on top of his salary yet did no research or travel or 'environmental data gather' or whatever other crap you've decied to make up in order try to make a point.

........pure base ignorance.

You know what, you should finish every post you make with that phrase, as a kind of signature, as well as description of what you've written.

Edited April 1, 2015 by Argus

cybercoma · April 1, 2015

It's not time off. It's time away from teaching coursework to fulfill research obligations. It's also often at a pay cut of about 20%.

Michael Hardner · April 1, 2015

Just how many people in any profession or job, public or private, get to take a year off with full pay every seven years like professors? Now we learn some CEOs at universities get the same thing, only for them it's every five years. What exactly is the logic behind this? What benefit does the university derive from it? And why do we pay university presidents more than we pay the prime minister of Canada? Why are universities being so generous with my money?

And don't tell me it's because of their spectacular skill set given the guy in charge of the University of Ottawa the last some years is Allan Rock.

I'm not sure why you're asking me this. Anyway, others on the thread seem to have answers to this.

cybercoma · April 1, 2015

I'm not sure why you're asking me this. Anyway, others on the thread seem to have answers to this.

He has me on ignore so he won't see my response, but it stands. Professors are not teachers like those you find high schools and elementary schools. They're researchers who share their knowledge with university students through courses. Part of being a researcher is to spend time doing research, which is incredibly difficult while teaching a full course load. This is why professors get teaching assistants, but it's also why they get sabbaticals. Often times their research requires them to spend time at other institutions and collaborating with others around the world. Even when they don't need to travel to collaborate, they often need the extra time to carry out their research. That job alone is a fulltime job, then the teaching obligations come on top of that, as well as what they call service obligations. This includes reviewing articles for academic journals (something that's not paid above and beyond their university salaries), sitting on committees, and other administrative tasks for the university and academic community. When they take sabbaticals the only thing that comes off their plate is the teaching component of the teaching/research/service triad.

Big Guy · April 1, 2015

I suggest that the fewer credentials and/or qualifications that one has for a particular position, the more one feels that a person already in that position is overpaid.

Bob Macadoo · April 1, 2015

I suggest that the fewer credentials and/or qualifications that one has for a particular position, the more one feels that a person already in that position is overpaid.

That statement defines this messageboard.

overthere · April 2, 2015

I asked what other profession got a year off on pay.

I don't know, who are you talking about?

My SIL is a prof at a university. She does teach some classes, supervises grad students, does some research in her field and does admin work for her faculty. Her contract permits a paid sabbatical for up to 8 months every five years, but there are strings and she has to apply and be approved.

The purpose of the sabbatical is for research. The topic has to be reviewed and approved by peers, other profs in other countries that understand the work and deem it worthy. There must be deliverables in the form of an agreed contract between her and the university: a book, published papers, presentations, etc. The deliverables are assessed by the same grup at the end of the sabbatical. If travel or other costs are needed, an approved budget is agreed.

It is not a holiday, though she does not have to account for her time every day. But, she does not have to account for her time every day, for the most part, in her everyday career.

guyser · April 2, 2015

Hey shady, as I sit here <someone has sensitivity issues-removed> with my fingers I wonder if this could be answered?

What public entity exists completely on tax money?

Edited April 2, 2015 by Guyser2

Scotty · April 9, 2015

Do you not think that maybe policing costs are on the rise since we now have a fetish for spying on civilians and arming cops to the teeth with military surplus so they can go bust the skulls of protesters who are standing up for their rights? The tools are more expensive and we're hiring more because we're building a police state designed to protect the oligarchy.

You apparently chose not to read my cite. If you had you'd have read that

Over 15 years to 2011, the wage increases of police, firefighters and paramedics have far outstripped the cost of living, the rate of inflation and the average of other public sector workers, including nurses and teachers.

They also enjoy expensive pensions and fringe benefits: coverage that most ratepayers will never enjoy. The questionable “retention bonuses” paid to keep essential workers in cities where they are already working are yet another cost.

This has little to do with John Smith making more than $100k.

You'd also have read that

Eighty-four per cent of Toronto’s operating budget increases for the last 10 years have been driven by salary increases for essential services.

You have no idea how many hours these people are working, namely what kind of overtime they're putting in to get there.

What difference does that make? If the police, fire and medical services are being run so badly that they have to have huge amounts of overtime for so many police officers than it's time to fire those in charge. Most of the people on the sunshine list are cops, firefighters and EMTs. Edited April 9, 2015 by Scotty

Scotty · April 9, 2015

Professors are not teachers like those you find high schools and elementary schools. They're researchers who share their knowledge with university students through courses.

Not so much! Most courses are taught by TAs.

Part of being a researcher is to spend time doing research, which is incredibly difficult while teaching a full course load.

Maybe, but they don't teach a full course load.

Often times their research requires them to spend time at other institutions and collaborating with others around the world. Even when they don't need to travel to collaborate, they often need the extra time to carry out their research.

But the Western president carried out no research. He instead didn't go on his sabattical, and he got paid for it anyway. Care to explain the benefits to us all?

Scotty · April 9, 2015

I don't know, who are you talking about?

My SIL is a prof at a university. She does teach some classes, supervises grad students, does some research in her field and does admin work for her faculty. Her contract permits a paid sabbatical for up to 8 months every five years, but there are strings and she has to apply and be approved.

The purpose of the sabbatical is for research.

I'm sure there are some professors who could do research while they're on sabbatical. I'm just as sure most don't do anything worthwhile to their students or the university. What research does a law professor do? Or an English professor? What about an accounting professor or an IT professor?

Please don't say they do this to keep themselves up to date in their fields. All professionals have to do research and read trade papers to keep themselves up to date in their fields, and they don't get a year off to do it. That includes all the lawyers, accountants, IT professionals, and yes, scientists who work in the private sector or for other governments. Like the rest of those professionals, university professors can do it on their own time, especially given their light course loads and that their summer holidays are a good 3-4 months long.

Scotty · April 9, 2015

I suggest that the fewer credentials and/or qualifications that one has for a particular position, the more one feels that a person already in that position is overpaid.

Am I given to understand you feel it is wrong to criticize the multimillion dollar salaries of CEOs?

cybercoma · April 9, 2015

Not so much! Most courses are taught by TAs.

Courses most certainly are not taught by TAs. There's a problem right now with courses being increasingly taught by adjuncts. That's not the same thing as a TA, not even close. An adjunct is someone who's already a PhD and working part-time. TAs are student assistants.

Maybe, but they don't teach a full course load.

Who's they? Professors teach a full course load, unless they apply for a lighter course load or are on sabbatical. Both of these things require the presentation of some sort of deliverables in the process, i.e., publications, and usually external funding looks good on the application as well.

But the Western president carried out no research. He instead didn't go on his sabattical, and he got paid for it anyway. Care to explain the benefits to us all?

The Western president should have never been paid for a sabbatical that he didn't take. I don't know any professors who have the luxury of being paid out for a sabbatical but not taking it. That's the kind of overcompensation that only the top administrators manage to pull in for themselves. Edited April 9, 2015 by cybercoma

Big Guy · April 10, 2015

To Scotty - It is never "wrong" to criticize anybody. Everyone has a right to an opinion. The reader of that opinion evaluates the value of that point of view based on the credibility of the author of that opinion.

As I had stated, the closer you are to being qualified for a particular job, the better understanding you have of that position and the compensation that it warrants.

cybercoma · April 18, 2015

Here's a graphic from the HRSDC on after-tax income by top and bottom quintile and the middle 60%.

c_4_22_2_1_eng.png?20131122150206227

This illustrates what I was saying about the Sunshine List and perhaps why most people don't understand why it needs to be raised from $100k to $145k. You can see on the table where it was introduce in 1996 and what has happened to the top quintile since then. Leaving the Sunshine List at $100k is at best inaccurate and doesn't convey what it used to.

Michael Hardner · April 18, 2015

It's hard to determine the change in the bottom quintile line...

Hydraboss · April 18, 2015

I'd love to see that chart reworked with the three groups each having secondary lines - after tax (net) income. Just the mandatory norms (Federal, Provincial, EI, CPP). Now THAT would be interesting...a modified Sunshine List comparing take home pay.

Michael, you know as well as I do that the change in the smaller range will always be difficult to see on a high-range chart. If a top 20% went from 100k to 120k (20% increase), it would show easily. If someone making 15k had the same increase (to 18k), it would be a very small bump in the line.

Michael Hardner · April 18, 2015

Michael, you know as well as I do that the change in the smaller range will always be difficult to see on a high-range chart. If a top 20% went from 100k to 120k (20% increase), it would show easily. If someone making 15k had the same increase (to 18k), it would be a very small bump in the line.

That's why I wanted to see numbers.

cybercoma · April 19, 2015

What does that matter? The chart shows take home pay.

Hydraboss · April 19, 2015

The sunshine list shows people grossing over 100k, so this chart has basically nothing to do with it anyway (completely different metric). I said it would be nice to see both gross and net pay on the same chart for all three groups. This also has nothing to do with the sunshine list. Unfortunately, your opinion isn't supported by what is shown in the HRSDC chart.

edit - my mistake. I just noticed my first post was asking for net instead of gross. Should have been the latter.

Edited April 19, 2015 by Hydraboss

cybercoma · April 19, 2015

The people making $100k in this chart are actually further above the cutoff for The Sunshine List, which only supports my point further.

Civis Romanus sum · April 19, 2015

The people making $100k in this chart are actually further above the cutoff for The Sunshine List, which only supports my point further.

You are confused by a simplistic chart. It does not show 'take home pay' but income. You are looking at line for 'the top 20%" and taking a grossly distorted picture from that. The numbers you are looking at, and the improvement in them, are disproportionately influenced by the wealthy, who are a miniscule percentage of the 'top twenty' but make extremely high incomes. Those incomes have been improving better than everyone elses because a large percentage of that income is from investments, which have been doing extremely well do to the way the various federal agencies through the world have been flooding the markets with cheap money and buying bonds.

cybercoma · April 20, 2015

You are confused by a simplistic chart. It does not show 'take home pay' but income. You are looking at line for 'the top 20%" and taking a grossly distorted picture from that. The numbers you are looking at, and the improvement in them, are disproportionately influenced by the wealthy, who are a miniscule percentage of the 'top twenty' but make extremely high incomes. Those incomes have been improving better than everyone elses because a large percentage of that income is from investments, which have been doing extremely well do to the way the various federal agencies through the world have been flooding the markets with cheap money and buying bonds.

And none of that has anything to do with the current discussion and the point that I was making, which is that $100k income in 1996 is $145k today. The Sunshine List, however, stayed at $100k and people are complaining that it has grown. Well, no crap it grew. The cap didn't change with inflation.