Volume 25, No. 13 Editor: Bob Rupert March, 1995. MANDATORY VS FLEXIBLE RETIREMENT: FACTS AND FICTION CUASA's Steering Committee would like to address some of the misconceptions surrounding the issue of retirement. There has been much discussion in local papers and among faculty about mandatory retirement. While CUASA encourages discussion among its members on all issues that affect them, members should also be reminded that it is unwise for any group to make major concessions before collective bargaining even begins. The next round promises to be extremely difficult. A degree of caution is necessary to serve both the interest of our members and of Carleton as an institution. MYTH 1 * CUASA opposes retirement for its members before the age of 71, and does not seek membership approval about any change in these policies. FACT * CUASA has initiated or participated over a decade in provisions for early retirement. The union has investigated early retirement for members as young as 50, but pension laws do not permit this. * CUASA strongly supports retirement initiatives for its members providing that individuals retain the freedom to choose a plan that best suits their needs. * CUASA met with Carleton's management to find ways to increase voluntary early retirements. Management unilaterally decided to create its own plan. When negotiations progress toward the next contract, any proposed agreement affecting retirement must be and will be put to our members. MYTH 2 * The recent Carleton initiative demonstrates that voluntary early retirement plans do not work. Only mandatory retirement at 65 will result in significant savings. FACT * Average retirement ages under flexible plans are lower than those under mandatory plans. The early retirement offered by Carleton's management was initially to have been based on those offered by the Universities of Guelph and Calgary. The plan at Guelph generated over 100 early retirements. Calgary's resulted in the retirement of almost all faculty over the age of 55. * But the plan at Carleton offered significantly fewer benefits and inducements. Its failure does not discredit the principle of flexible retirement, but only management's implementation of it here. * Carleton presently has provisions in its Collective Agreement offering competitive inducements for early retirement. Members can qualify solely at the discretion of management. Permission is rarely given. MYTH 3 * Retiring at age 65 would save the university $2.5 million. FACT * The saving of $2.5 million is calculated on nominal salaries of Carleton faculty over the age of 64. It is no more than a hypothetical projection of future costs "pulled out of a hat". Few faculty 65 or over work full time. On the July 1st after reaching 68, none can work full time. The savings to the University from mandatory retirement at 65 would be a fraction of what is claimed. MYTH 4 * According to The Charlatan, Carleton "could hire three junior professors, who earn a salary of between $30,000 and $40,000 a year, for the cost of one senior professor who can earn up to $100,000 a year." FACT * The average salary for an Assistant Professor, the most junior rank, is $58,559. The average salary for a Full Professor at Carleton is $90,988. Since most faculty 65 or over are on half-time appointments earning less than the average Assistant Professor, it is difficult to see how any savings or academic appointments could result from mandatory retirement. It is a fallacy that graduate programs could be maintained through the replacement of senior faculty by Assistant Professors fresh out of graduate school. Many replacement faculty would be hired at ranks and salaries considerably above the floor for Assistant Professor. MYTH 5 * Older faculty are financially secure, and can afford to make way for younger people. Mandatory retirement will also result in affirmative action, creating jobs for women and disadvantaged groups. FACT * CUASA originally fought for flexible retirement options to protect women and disadvantaged individuals who often had to interrupt their education or career patterns. They frequently begin academic careers later and end up with inadequate pension benefits. Salaries of Full Professors in disciplines such as Science or Engineering are higher than the average due to market differentiation. Those for Social Sciences are lower, while those for the Arts are substantially lower. Traditionally, disciplines with higher numbers of female employees offer lowest salaries. Commonly, faculty in the Arts earn $20,000 less annually than someone of the same rank and age in the Sciences and Engineering. Retirement arrangements suitable for well-paid disciplines are not suitable for other. It is easier for faculty in disciplines like Business or Computer Science to find employment elsewhere. Private enterprise is not recruiting senior Classics or Philosophy scholars. Mandatory retirement does not take these inequities into account. * The salaries of Full Professors at Carleton are among the lowest in the province. Assistant and Associate Professors are about average for the province. Is it in the interest of equity that the rank with the least competitive salary be forced to make sacrifices not required of other ranks?