Mine did as well - about $5 a pay.  It was the cpp increase - unlike yours a modest change to be sure.

I came out just about even.  Have to go back and compare to a month other than December though because there was no EI taken off in December.

  EDIT:  actually I may be in the minority.  even with a lower mileage amount this year my January chq year=to-year was higher.  not much but it was higher.

And, there is more to come..... when the comprehesive salary scheme is put in place pension will be affected again.

Because (no surprise) my salary was frozen for 2013 (I'm above minimum) I can compare apples to apples with the Benefits Spreadsheet macro for my pension. Yep. The new pension deduction cost me $100/month more. $1200/year, off the top. Ouch.

This is confusing to me but I bet someone will be able to explain.  Isn't there a standard salary for UC ministers?  Person with 'this' education in 'this' year of employment gets paid 'that' much?   

Hi kaythecurler,

 

 

There is a salary grid which establishes the minimum salary for ministry personnel that is based upon years of service.  There are no salary incentives for gaining more education beyond the minimum the Church requires prior to ordination.

 

The issue is that Pensions and Benefits, are directly tied to that salary and in order to maintain the pension fund the deductions taken from the base salary has increased and not by a little.

 

So last year my pension deductions were $X dollars and this year, with the same salary (adjusted for inflation) my pension deductions will be $X + x dollars.  This means that my takehome has gone from $X dollars to $X - x dollars.

 

To make matters worse I can expect to receive a pension of $X dollars upon my retirement but those ordained this year (2013) can hope only to receive a pension of $X/2 dollars.  Or to make it a little clearer.  I was ordained in 1998 and will reach 65 in 2030 at which time I will retire with (for comparison purposes only) $100.  If I was ordained in 2013 and retired at 65 in 2045 with the same number of years served and the same level of education I would only receive $50 at retirement.

 

I may not have the figures exact though they are, by the best of my memory, close to what was explained to us at the Hamilton Conference AGM last year.

 

Grace and peace to you.

John

John I thnk the math is off in comparing the pension accriual (don't think it is a 50% hit) but your description matches my understanding.

 

 

No. There are minimums, below which a church can not pay, but otherwise the sky is the limit. I am paid about 10% over the top category and many, many years past the top category in seniority. And I have additional related education (a second Masters degree).

and to confuse the issue a little more: Has anyone heard or been told how the roll out of the comprehensive salary schedule will take place.  Is it mandatory?  And, I'm sure I was told somewhere that there will be "regional" minimums for the new reality.  Probably that's in a memo somewhere - when will they come out?  In that endeavour,  your pensions possibly could take another hit, as  the procedure for determining deductions to help pay the pensions will change.  time to invest in lottery tickets - odds seem about the same ;)

 

It's in the last GCE workbook. Yes, it's mandatory.

Does this mean that bigger congregations get to pick the best ministers as they can afford to pay more?  Or does it mean that small rural congregations have to pay more than the minimum or they can't attract anyone at all?   Is there some sort of breakdown on this that shows how it plays out in real life?

 

To a degree the answers are yes, yes, and not really (although there was talk about building a picture of clergy compensation I am not sure how clear a picture they have yet).

 

Mind you the definition of "best" minister is wholly subjective.  SOme poeple are "best" in one type of congregation and totally mis-matched for another.  What does definitely happen is htat some congregations can not pay above category B or C and so they not only limit the pool they have to draw from and do not have the benefit of experienced clergy but they shut themselves out from a long-term pastorate.  It is my belief that a long-term pastorate is what is needed in some communities, particularly after a pattern of 3-5 year pastorates.

To get information on the pension plan for the United Church, please do go online:

http://www.united-church.ca/minstaff/pension

and the newsletter, Foresight:

http://www.united-church.ca/communications/newsletters/foresight

For plan members, the benefit is accrued based on your Pensionable Earnings at (now)1.4% per year. Each of these amounts are added to the sum of your accrued benefit: picture building blocks, with a 'block' being added each year. It was 1.7% until Jan 1, 2013. Going forward, the amount added to the 'pile of blocks' is .3% smaller.

There is an updated pre-retirement seminar coming March 4, with information to be posted (really soon!) at the above "pension' link.

For "Comprehensive Salary" implementation information, please read Connex. There will be more information about the changes, including a tentative schedule for implementation in the May 2013 of Connex.

Connex, the newsletter of Benefits, Compensation, Pastoral Relations and the work of the Permanent Committee on Ministry and Employment Policies and Services:

http://www.united-church.ca/communications/newsletters/connex

The changes for Student Internships has been announced (Dec.2012 Connex) and will start at Jan 1, 2014.

The process will be gradual, and announced Well In Advance so no one should be caught by surprise when the change is finanally implemented.

 

 

Translated, "we pay more and get less". And at the end of the month, there is a lot less in the bank account. See my real world example above.

Yes. That's true: you pay more and get less.

The COLA of 2.9%--although, if you make over the minimum, getting it is a local/admin/M&P decision---and keeping the benefit premiums at the 2012 levels was intended to mitigate a big hit to net pay.

Also, taxiable income *is* lower, which should be evident at tax time.

 

Guess what? It's not evident. And I know of very few in this presbytery who are above minimum who got any raise. We are back in the 1990's again. I also know there will be a HUGE hit with the ministry compensation scheme. Housing allowances in this presbytery are 30% below market. With mandated housing, there will be a huge crunch when the new allowances are prescribed. This won't be pretty, at all.

Which means you're only making what now DKS, around $60,000?

 

 

My heart goes out to you.

 

Rich blessings.

[quote=MC jae]

Which means you're only making what now DKS, around $60,000?

 

Nope. $44,000

 

 

 

Rich blessings.

Hi MC jae,

 

 

If that someone is you it is a pity that it doesn't show.

 

Grace and peace to you.

John

 

You seem to be a tad confused revjohn. I'm not the one on here boo-hoo-hooing about my salary.

 

There, there, don't worry little revjohn, you'll be getting your $44,000 too.

 

Rich blessings.

Your Jae is showing again, It was too good to LAST

Hi MC jae,

 

 

I'm not confused at all.  And stating a fact, that salary has gone down is far from boo-hooing.

 

If you are indeed happy making less then why do you begrudge others who make more?

 

 

Condescension doesn't become you.

 

I won't be making $44, 000.00 for a while yet.  Not that what I or DKS make is actually the issue.

 

The issue is your resentment.  Which is rather obvious.

 

Grace and peace to you.

John

 

Why thank you, revjohn, so kind of you to say.

 

 

And yet I am not resentful. I'm very thankful for every blessing God has given to me, and every blessing that He has given to everyone else. I believe that God provides each of us with whaever it may be that we need to fulfill our service to Him. Hence there is no reason for anyone to be resentful.

 

And with that I bid you all adieu.

 

Rich blessings.

Hi MC jae,

 

 

It doesn't become anyone.  Which is why it is always a puzzlement to see folk model it.

 

 

Neither are you being honest about it.

 

 

That being the case why is that thankfulness so utterly absent from your response to DKS and now your attack on me?

 

 

Then why the resentment?

 

Grace and peace to you.

John

 

And you are confused. I am not "boo-hoo-ing" about my salary. I am pointing out that the United Church is less than transparent about the impact of changes to the Pension Plan. As I am closing in on retirement, those changes have a direct impact on my future. And yes, of that salary I tithe 10%.

 

My sincere apologies to you then DKS.

 

Rich blessings.

Happily, for those closer to retirement the affects of the changes to the pension plan are far less than for those who are farther away from retirement.

In fact, the Pension Board has been as transparent as possible about these changes.  Can I answer any questions?  Are there any aspects that need further clarification? (it is my job in Ministry and Employment, after all)

Interesting posts here:  Just like in "real" life, there is the expectation that clergyfolk are supposed to be happy, nay grateful, for whatever compensation the national church might mandate and the local congregation might choose to pay.  Indeed it has been assumed that a vow of poverty is near the expectation for clergy.   There is a new reality that has swamped church life, that was not the case in the past. Yet, the past attitudes still seem to prevail, though not so much.  However, the United Church has long been an advocate for 'living wages' and equality of pay, and decent pay for decent work.  And still, the idea persists that a clergyperson, of any state, is somehow less than properly faithful or religious of something if that person seeks to better him/herself, and the lives of their family by asking for an equitable rate of pay.  The days are gone when the extra food, extra clothing, extra whatever, showed up at the manse.  Being called to service for the Lord is good. But do people still think that suffering is the only way to be truly spiritual?

I remember one time I was moving up a category with an increase in pay ( one of the more hefty ones). There was also a cost of living increase - not much but a little.

 

The treasurer relented to give me the incrememnt increase after I referred her to head Office but refused the cost of living increase. She said, "We can't afford both."

 

I have found that some volunteers( while trying to do a good job in the church) think that the bank account is theirs alone and must be monitored as such.

"Give us this day..."

 

If the cost of living increase was included in the salary scale then they had no choice but to pay both.  The only choice there was if the charge was paying anything over and above the national minimum, and even then I would argue that if the charge has agreed to pay an amount (either $$ or %age) over minimum they are ethically bound to live up to that agreement as the minimum changes either through COLA or through changes in category.

Sometimes you pick your battles. A little cost of living wasn't worth the trouble that would have ensued with the Treasureer

I have always felt that UCC ministers are grossly underpaid. The average salary of someone with the same ammount of education should be twice what it is for UCC ministers.  45 thousands is just bartely a living wage. in cities. In Ottawa most gvt clerks who only have High Schhols make that or much more.  When I was a bricklayer, I made over 66,000 a years, and many other tradesmen make more. A minister is worth at a minimum the same pay rate as a gvt clerk, or a tradesmen in my opinion. And more likely the salariy of a doctor, or an engineer.

 

Now I understand that many ministers come from families that support them, (either through inheritances or through other means.)  As well many minister have spouses with well paying jobs.  I suspect a significant number  of ministers have disabled spouses, no spouce, and no family or promise of an inheritance. It shows a lack of empathy  for a lay person, or a minister with income from family to support such low pay for those ministers who have no other source of income.

"But if we have food and clothing, we will be content with that."

 

Really than why not tell your wife to give up her home, vacations to Europe, education for her grandchildren and so on?

 

 

So, do you turn down your paycheque (or at least return it all to the church that gives it to you) in exchange for food and clothing?

 

Just curious.

One thing I can say plainly. I have never asked for more than what I am offered in any of my working relationships. Nor have I ever sought perks and benefits. As a point of principle I have almost never taken either mileage money, book allowances or paid study leave. The money demanded by UCC polity has generally been returned to the congregations in which I have served. Where the congregation is affluent, I have given the required payment to support social organizations aimed at alleviation of poverty among populations at risk.

 

When I married, twenty seven years ago, I owned a change of clothing, a box of books and an old guitar. This was at the age of thirty-five. Prior to this I had lived most of my adult life in single occupancy rooms; requiring nothing more than space to sleep and eat my simple fare. Marriage drew me into the middle class by appearances, but my heart has ever and always preferred simplicity to complexity. Over the years my wife has adopted this attitude and we live every year with less than the year before.

 

Citing the text I do not mean to make simplicity mandatory. I only wish to remember that the tradition, at its best, has ever been cautious concerning involvement with the economic promise of the rising state in any time or place.

I am not sure what you are saying, but it appears that you are saying you live of your spouces income, and that you have no children,  let alone children with special needs. 

 

So what do you suggest of clergy who have no other funds to support them except there UCC pay? What about those who also have husbands, wifes, or children with special needs? 

 

the reason I am hostie is that people who support lower pay for clergy alos genrally support the idea that clergy are called to a differnet level of commitment than are lay Christians. It sounds like clericalism, which in turn leads to clergy dening their humanity, and thus leads to abuse, which we have seen over the last 1000-1800 years in the church.  Do you also call on lay people in your sermons  to return there salaries and benefits to their employers, or charities? 

 

 

First of all, what I intend is critical to the overcoming of that species of clericalism by which we are governed into predicatments such as we now inhabit. I am making no claim for my right and I have no objection to any making a claim to any right to which they take themselve to be entitled. I have no sense of entitlement. All that I have in my trust is given as a stewardship for which I will give an account.

 

My mother raised me and my siblings by resort to the sparsest of means. Father was an adventurer who squandered his wages and often left us destitute. Through this I learned much about what it means to walk in the spirit rather than in the flesh. I learned this by the example of my mother and in contrast to the clergymen who ruled her experience, by their distortions of the gospel in the service of capitalization; that enslaving god by which creature and creation are spoiled.

 

I am called to pronounce good news in the hearing of persons passing through the valley of shadows, the diverse dreads and perils which ever hover in the background. For two decades I have done all in my poor power to make plain that a great dissolution is on us. All forms and structures by which we have established our material paradise are now in rapid decay. Would it not be hypocrisy, to warn others of dire circumstances to follow in the wake of our decisive commitments to the world of money, while pressing forward my own right and advantage according to the rules of the game in which we are immersed?

 

The gospel is pronounced in the shadows of an empire and a people in decline. Cherished traditions and institutions are threatened by collapse. All measures to prevent the fall serve only to exacerbate the dilemma and increase the stakes. Everything depends on the maintenance of order and control. This is threatened by the persuasive influence of an intinerant commoner. Exponentially, persons and groups are withdrawing their participation in the economy of the temple and the palace. Many emmigrate and carry the gifts of temperance, thrift and compassion into all their relations.

 

To be clear I am well versed in the use of money. Mother taught us well how to make a penny travel far; to be aware that our management of available resources determined our readiness for times of testing. She also taught us that when money began to dominate our consciousness we were in peril of losing our rootage in the disciplines and consolations of Grace.

 

I have two stepchildren. They are now grown and independent. Something of a rarity in a context where intergenerational codependency is on the rise. Each has moderate expectations and each is responsible to the limit of their means. In their early adult years we were reminiscing.

 

The two of them were quite indignant considering how much we had spent on education and yet we had never been to Disneyland. By our example we refused the seductions of the consumer culture which is our common experience. This was our practice and it was supported by our precepts.

 

My wife is an international scholar and researcher in the field of Nursing. She has lived an apostolic life, bringing her remarkable insights concerning the relationship of illness to wellness, how each makes claims and each calls for decisive action, into Universities around the world. She has won just about every national teaching prize and many international awards and recognitions. There is an illusion that this is all about earning wages for services rendered. This is not the case. The wages follow and provide the means for furthering the process of communicating what is given in her calling and vocation.

 

To be clear, I have no argument with the use of money. It is the pursuit of money, for the sake of that which money makes possible, that I refuse, in practice as in precept. 

 

There are two worlds and we have a hand in each. Our task consists in bringing the benefits of the spiritual world into the experience of the material world. We are diverted from this task when we accommodate our precept and practice in the service of capitalization. Marx notices the dilemma of wages by which the labourer is alienated from the labour.

 

I am not saying this to argue with any other's point of view or to make a case for my own point of view. These are simply the thoughts I have been given to think in these passing moments.

 

Now the pup is talking to me, inviting me to play. His name is McDuff. He has a mind of his own, which I value very highly. I am looking for cooperation and not domination as we walk the path and come to the option of the ways.

 

 

And so I remember so clearly, the school trips my children could not go on. the hot dog days missed, the clothing that had to be hand-me-downs, the accepted offers of supplementary food, the housing where one parishoner asked "Are you happy living like this?"  The non-existant trips anywhere. I don't think that in south west Ontario air conditioning is a frill clergy really don't need (a quote from another parishoner).  Experiencing the wide wage gap between those big city churches and the country parishes.  Being noted for having worn the same suit coat to church two weeks in a row, well duh, I owned three!   Having my spouse told "That dress you have on was nice when they were in style."  Yup, doing without has its benefits, but in the 21st century I'm not sure the vow of poverty thing has the same result and effect it did in the 12th century.   and now, lets talk about current pay scale changes, and pensions.  Gee we clergy are sooooooo greedy.

The pay scale I assume from the conversation here is lower than I expected. No, I wasn't expecting megachurch numbers. I certainly have greater respect for the profession, because you clearly aren't in it for the money, and must therefore have a real attachment to what you do. Even if I obviously don't respect the beliefs you espouse, I have a definite respect for the talents many of you have with people and with words.

Double hit this year, Chansen: modest pay increase (that may or may not be applied, depending on various conditions) coupled with a significant increase in pension plan contributions for both employers and plan members.

Of course, that was the original gist of the post; there's been some interesting deviation through the thread.

That's just Jae being Jae. If he doesn't approve of something, that's your best indication that you're doing something worthwhile.

Greed is not in play from my perspective, though there may be exceptions to the norm.

 

The conversation seems, I am notorious in some circles for missing the point, to be expressing concern over diminishing returns on the investment of our labour. Where we expected one thing another thing is coming into play.

 

This is not specific to clergy with the United Church of Canada. It is the experience of all persons implicated in the trajectory of Capitalism. Every day corporate mathematicians make decisons by which the lived experience of persons is recalibrated and diminished. Where we find our resources diminished by increments, others about us are having the rug pulled out from under them.

 

Surely we, members of the clergy, have seen this coming? Have we not for the last decades discerned the turning tide and adjusted our expectations and priorities accordingly. I call to mind the ancient insight: "But know this, that if the master of the house had known in what part of the night the thief was coming, he would have stayed awake and would not have let his house be broken into."

 

Have we not been preparing ourselves for this day? More importantly, have we not been in prayer and discernment about the means by which we may equip those who gather to our leadership to weather the storm that is set to break on our shore?

 

Such are the questions I bring to the gathered voices.  I am wrong about many things and I may be wrong about these things as well..

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hi MC jae...

 

Is this your Cairn?

 

Teachers in Alberta had a similar shift about 12 years ago. employed teachers started paying a higher pension assessment plus an extra assessment to make up for a shortfall when the ATA and the Government deliberately under assessed what was needed for a sustainable pension plan.  I suspect this coming budget is going to pinch current teachers, and I expect there may be one or more strikes this year as a result.  An unfair aspect of that adjustment was that retired teachers had all the benefits of the deliberate shortfall and new teachers paid the penalty.  I just started receiving my pension last year (much smaller than most UCC pensions as I am second career), so am one who is benefitting from the old regime.  I am not sure, but I believe as I continue as Retired Supply that I will be paying a similar increase in pension deductions on my new income.

I thought Retired Suppply did not pay into the Pension plan?  In fact I remember a proposal that would call for PAstoral Charges using Retired Supply to start having to pay the employer part of th pension assessment because of a sense that charges were using RS as a way to save money.

Currently they don't. I believe there was a proposal at the last GC to return that provision. On one hand, I don't like the provision as it deprives the pension of income and affecting my pension. On the other, it will make me much more attractive to congregations as a Retired Supply in a multi-year appointment (yes, that's possible) when I can tell them "Look how much money I will save you!" And both of those statements are entrlely self-serving.