A few of our stories and columns are now in front of the paywall. We at The Chief-Leader remain committed to independent reporting on labor and civil service. It's been our mission since 1897. You can have a hand in ensuring that our reporting remains relevant in the decades to come. Consider supporting The Chief, which you can do for as little as $3.20 a month.
Computer systems managers who have worked for the City University of New York for more than a decade say morale has taken a hit over the lack of raises and pay inequities they say they have faced for several years.
Between 2009 and 2016, the managers, who are state employees in a classified managerial title and cannot unionize, did not receive any raises. And while they received 9.41-percent increases in September 2017 and 2-percent bumps in both July 2021 and July 2022, they were not granted retro pay for the years they went without raises, even though other public-sector employees, including some managers, did get the back pay.
Although members of the Professional Staff Congress, the largest union at CUNY, went without a contract from 2010 until 2016, they subsequently received 10.41-percent pay increases and retroactive payments. And earlier this year, the Adams administration announced that city managers — who are also not unionized — would receive raises in line with the pattern set by District Council 37, including retroactive pay bumps and a $3,000 bonus.
“When you look at the amount of money that we haven’t received, going back to 2009 — this is a significant amount of retirement and pension contribution. That’s a long time not to have that money,” said one veteran CSM, one of several who spoke with The Chief on the condition of anonymity to protect against possible retribution.
“There was a whole blackout period from 2009 to 2017. Customarily, it’s when the union settled that we would get some breadcrumbs. But with one of the union’s settlements, we got nothing,” the employee added.
'We're basically excluded'
The PSC settled a contract in 2019 that included five annual 2-percent raises. But classified managerial titles did not receive pay increases following that agreement. They did not receive a pay boost until July 2022, when they were also given one retroactive raise for the prior year, but none for 2018 through 2020. And because classified managerial titles are subject to maximum salary levels, many were exempt from receiving raises, or could only receive partial raises up to the top salary.
“Because CSM salaries do not increase ever, the people who report to us make more. So that’s a morale issue, but it’s a huge problem,” a second longtime CSM said. “There is unfair treatment. You do see that increases have been granted to many people over the years, and CSMs are basically excluded.”
Classified managerial employees at CUNY have received annual raises and retro payments in the past. In 2007, for instance, they were granted four retroactive salary increases ranging from 1 percent to 2.75 percent, according to a payroll bulletin posted on the state comptroller’s website.
In 2022, the CUNY Board of Trustees approved salary increases for classified managerial employees at the same time it approved increases for employees on the executive compensation plan. But the board has more recently approved significant raises for its executives. Last month, the board approved a 16-percent increase for the board secretary, Gayle Horwitz, who was also appointed as a senior vice chancellor during the board meeting, bringing her salary to $320,681.
“So here we are, technically white-collar, classified managerials who are not represented by collective bargaining. So we don’t have representation with our brothers and sisters in the union … and we don’t also enjoy the retroactive pay increases that the executives on the executive compensation plan do,” the first CSM said.
A third CSM called for CUNY to come good with the managers. “Treat us fairly. We shouldn’t have to threaten, jump up and down and scream. Fair and equitable treatment, that’s what we’re looking for,” the manager said.
The workers said they have raised the issue “respectfully,” adding that they’ve sent emails to employee relations and human resources staff. Their inquiries have been brushed off, they said.
Out of compliance?
The managers also highlighted a 1987 CUNY’s Board of Trustees resolution outlining titles in the managerial class and a process for raises.
“It is anticipated that the Vice Chancellor for Faculty and Staff Relations will propose each year to the Board the amount of an adjustment to the salaries of persons serving in the managerial service and, if approved, make a concomitant adjustment of the managerial pay schedule by an amount not in excess of the adjustments approved by the Board,” the resolution noted.
The second CSM wondered whether the board has actually proposed increases for classified managerial employees on an annual basis, as the resolution suggests. “What I really wonder is, how does CUNY interpret the 1987 resolution, and whether CUNY is out of compliance with its own rules?” the CSM asked.
CUNY did not confirm whether the annual salary increase proposals ever occurred. The Chief did not find evidence that pay increases were proposed at any CUNY board meetings in recent years, except during meetings in which the managers’ 2017 and 2022 raises were proposed and approved.
A CUNY spokesperson said that the university will review salaries for non-PSC employees after a contract is settled with the PSC. The PSC’s pact expired Feb. 28, 2023.
“CUNY is grateful to our managerial employees whose work is critical to the University's operations. After current discussions with our faculty/professional union conclude, CUNY will review compensation for other employee groups,” the spokesperson said in a statement.
But the workers are looking for more than just a one-time fix. “What we’re looking for is pay equity. We are not looking for a quick and dirty solution,” the first CSM said. “We also want to take care of those that are making an investment in the university, that want to stay here for longevity — we want to make sure they have protections.”
We depend on the support of readers like you to help keep our publication strong and independent. Join us.
Comments
No comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here