The CSU is presenting the Segal Compensation Study as evidence that represented employees now receive fair and competitive compensation. However, the study’s findings require important context and raise significant questions.
APC Salaries Remain Below Market
The study does not show that APC salaries are fully competitive.
For Unit 4 employees, average base salaries remain:
- 3% below the higher-education market median
- 6% below a blended higher-education and general-industry market
- 10% below the general-industry market median
The study reaches a more favorable conclusion only when the estimated value of medical, dental, and retirement benefits is added. With benefits included, APC’s average total compensation is reported as 2% above the higher-education median.
Benefits are an important part of compensation, but they should not be used to dismiss concerns about base salaries. Employees pay their rent, mortgages, groceries, transportation, and other immediate expenses with their wages, not the estimated value of their benefits.
Who Are We Being Compared To?
Another major concern is transparency.
The report identifies the surveys used to evaluate staff salaries but does not identify the specific colleges and universities whose salary data were used to establish the market median for APC classifications.
Instead, Segal relies on broad national data from public bachelor’s, master’s, doctoral, and four-year institutions, along with a database using “all data.”
This raises an important question: Shouldn’t CSU employees be compared with appropriate California colleges and universities and other employers competing for the same workforce?
Without knowing the actual salary peers, classification matches, geographic adjustments, and results by APC classification and campus, it is difficult to conclude that Unit 4 salaries are truly competitive.
Lower-Paid Employees Continue to Fall Behind
The study also shows that employees earning less are generally less competitive.
According to the study:
- 75% of represented staff earn less than $80,000
- 66% of employees earning less than $80,000 are below the market median
These findings are especially concerning given the high cost of living throughout California.
The Study Does Not Measure Affordability
The CSU acknowledges that the study was not designed to determine whether CSU salaries are affordable or livable in California.
Instead, the study uses cost-of-labor adjustments based on what employers pay within a geographic labor market. Cost of labor and cost of living are not the same thing.
The geographic results also show continuing disparities in some of California’s most expensive areas:
- San Francisco: 11% below market median
- East Bay: 9% below market median
- San Jose: 8% below market median
These findings demonstrate that a statewide salary structure does not fully address California’s significant regional differences.
A New Methodology Does Not Erase the Problem
The Segal study does not prove that the previous Mercer study was wrong. Segal used a different methodology, different market comparisons, and placed greater emphasis on the value of benefits when evaluating total compensation.
Changing the methodology does not change the experiences of CSU employees who continue to face stagnant wages, geographic inequities, recruitment and retention challenges, and California’s high cost of living.
APC Will Continue to Advocate for Competitive Salaries
APC believes compensation should be evaluated transparently and should reflect the realities our members face.
The Segal study provides useful information, but it does not establish that Unit 4 salaries are fully competitive.
APC will continue reviewing the findings, asking questions about the methodology, and advocating for meaningful, ongoing salary improvements that address wage stagnation, geographic inequities, recruitment and retention, and the economic realities facing our members throughout California.