Skip to content


Salary Parity FAQs

What incentive is there for faculty or staff to continue their education beyond the minimum requirements for their position?

At the moment there is no incentive, other than the accomplishment and knowledge that comes with an advanced degree. I have asked that the Faculty Senate play a role in proposing a model for recognizing and incentivizing development.

Is there a way to offer an incentive pay increase when level of education is above the required minimum? Additional job duties?

At the moment our salary tables do not have a mechanism for increased pay when an individual holds a degree higher than that which is required. However, many, if not most of our positions list a minimum degree requirement with a preference for a higher credential. A model for increasing pay for a higher degree would also have to include a component for increased pay when an individual has far more experience than is asked for. This could skew salaries widely, especially among incoming employees.

Policy allows for supplemental pay or reclassifications when an employee takes on additional duties that fall outside their job description.

How/is educational achievement compensation reflected in our salaries?

Degrees are reflected in the value of the positions which are determined by a number of factors – degree required, experience required, duties, responsibilities, skills and other credentials.

Did the salary parity address taking on additional duties beyond what you were initially hired for? (i.e. overseeing another department)

Policy allows for supplemental pay or reclassifications when an employee takes on additional duties that fall outside their job description.

Will those that fell below the “8 year” threshold (determined by the school at the time the salary parity was conducted) be compensated in the same manner when they reach 8 years? Will this be a continuing practice? If not, the same trend of being underpaid will continue until another salary parity takes place to capture everyone that fell below the 8 years.

This can be explored should funding permit.

What about employees that have been here under 8 years but have many years of experience at previous employers? Does that experience not justify higher than entry-level pay?

This model could be explored. The immediate concern is that individuals with increased experience can join the college at a higher salary than some employees who have been with Luna for several years. For example, a current employee has 10 years of experience elsewhere, and three years with Luna, for a total of 13 years relevant experience. If the College were to hire someone, in an identical position with 15 years’ experience, the new employee would make more than the current employee. Additionally, in a situation where budget is limited, the College would be encouraged to hire employees with less experience to save on salary expense.

How did Luna determine the 8 year mark for employees to move up to mid-point?

This was done by looking at the data of employee tenure and identifying large subgroups of employees.

When will the employees be looked at and not the positions?

Just because someone meets the minimum qualifications, does not mean they are as valuable to the institution as someone who has more experience, higher education, or even just a good attitude that goes above and beyond!

This process is addressed through the employee appraisal policy. If employees do no successfully perform they job function (after development and corrective action), they shall no longer be employed with the College.

Staff Senate is working on a proposal that recognizes and rewards employees with impeccable service to the institution.

Why don’t our annual evaluations ever result in pay increases?

Employee appraisals are both formative and summative. They are intended to ensure that employees are successful and developed in a manner that opens up possibilities with the college.
A concern is that connecting pay to appraisals would result in the same anxiety that existed when appraisals were connected to contract renewals. Finally, this process would have to be contingent upon funding.

I’ve heard that supervisors are encouraged to NOT give employees “exceeds expectations” on their annual evaluations. Is this true? And if yes, why? I ask this because I think that if an employee has demonstrated skills in their position that go above and beyond just the bare minimum that was not addressed in the salary parity either.

This is not accurate. All rating must receive comments supporting the supervisors’ opinion.

Would Luna consider an annual percentage increase if allowed for within the budget?

This is possible. The concern is that the College has been steadily losing state funding for the past four years. Luna cannot sustain these cuts. In order to sustain annual increases, it must increase its awards steadily for the next several years, otherwise recurring salary increases will further strain the College’s finances.

Can years of service be considered other than just the “8”?

It can be in the future. Once more, the Staff Senate, in collaboration with administration, can introduce a model.

If employees were moved up to the minimum or mid-point with the salary parity, how do they move up more without it being mandated by the State?

Right now this is the only model in place. This is very customary of all public institutions. Once more, the Staff Senate, in collaboration with administration, can introduce a model.

How do we meet our maximum pay?

Adjustments by the institution, combined with State mandated increases, are the two primary ways an employee’s salary can increase.

Why was input/feedback not solicited from staff/faculty leading up to the salary parity? I recognize that there was a forum held to provide information on what was going to occur, but I feel that a committee would have been helpful for these questions to have been addressed prior.

The College hosted two forums and a Board presentation, leading up to its approval and implementation. Most questions didn’t arise until employees were provided with the details of how the parity would affect them.

Why did the company conducting the Salary Parity request us to provide a percentage breakdown of our essential job functions if it wasn’t going to be used? That was a tedious process and was not reflected accurately. We basically did the company’s job and they didn’t even bother to update our job descriptions accordingly.

This information was used by the consultant.

Why was our HR Director not more heavily involved in this process? (i.e. understanding of process to be able to explain it, job descriptions, ability to answer our questions without having to go through the company hired, etc.)

The HR director was the only individual who managed the consultant and the work that led to salary recommendations.

Why were there inconsistent practices regarding who met with HR about the salary parity? I think everyone should have been contacted in some way to let them know one way or the other.

The priority was to issue the increases in a timely manner. Therefore, the priority includes meeting first with those who were slated for an increase. Following these meetings, individuals whose title was going to change were asked to meet with HR.

Why was the Board of Trustees presented with names of individuals receiving the increases during the meeting? Their reactions were very unprofessional.

This information is public knowledge.