Market Adjustment Policy for MSUAASF

The MSUAASF Master Agreement stipulates general conditions for market considerations. Namely, St. Cloud State University may certify to the Association in writing that specified positions are paid below prevailing market rates based on salary surveys by third party professional organizations. Organizations such as Minnesota Department of Economic Security, Minnesota Department of Employee Relations, College and University Personnel Association, or comparable organizations or agencies which are mutually agreed upon between MnSCU and MSUAASF. Accordingly, St. Cloud State University may adjust the salaries for incumbent ASF members in such positions up to fifteen (15%) above each incumbent’s normal base salary. The adjustments shall be paid as a one-time lump sum payment within the fiscal year on a date to be determined by the Employer, and shall not constitute a permanent increase to the ASF member’s base salary.

Receipt of an annual adjustment pursuant to the Market Adjustment Policy, shall not be understood to create an expectation for any future annual payments.

St. Cloud State University has established certain parameters in considering such market adjustments; six criteria will be used to consider market adjustments. These include: 1) Length of service 2) Distance from the mean 3) Education and experience 4) Job performance 5) Timeframe for making request January 1 through March 31 6) Benchmark comparisons to CUPA Salary Survey (or other surveys) to mean salaries. The final market adjustment recommendations will be based on the following criteria:

  1. Length of service: Length of service should be a consideration; it is most appropriate when it is tied to time-in grade. How long has the incumbent been serving in the position at St. Cloud State University or in a comparable position at an external organization.
  2. Distance from the mean: Distance from the mean is a valid consideration. A dollar value or percentage of each deviation may be established and factored into the formula for market adjustment.
  3. Education and experience: Education and experience are two of the most valid indicators underpinning market considerations. Valid comparisons require that education, especially graduate education, be considered in reviewing market adjustments. If the graduate education is in a related field then the incumbent should be given optimal credit. If the education is average or minimum, then the incumbent should be given less credit. Experience is probably the most valid indicator when considering market adjustments. Experience above the minimum can be assessed for the position and value granted for incremental experience above the minimums. Though comparisons are often made to the CUPA mean, the average length of service indicated by the CUPA mean is not known. Establishing a St. Cloud State University MSUAASF mean among all such positions may be a valid indicator for comparison purposes. In summation, if the experience is direct then it should carry more weight. Some experience claimed is less focused; it is indirect in nature and therefore should not count as much as direct experience.
  4. Job performance: This is a factor that should be considered. If an employee is not meeting expectations, then a one-time bonus should not be considered.
  5. Timeframe for making the request: The timeframe for making market adjustments is January 1 through March 31 for budgeting purposes.
  6. Budget: If the budget cannot afford a market adjustment, then the request will be denied.

September 2003

Untitled Document