File photo of University of Ghana
Response to a rejoinder - analogy is not equality to our article pay equity in public universities: the case against the approved market premium.
The debate generated by our article, “Pay Equity in Public Universities: The Case Against the Approved Market Premium,” is both necessary and welcome. We equally acknowledge the rejoinder, “Analogy is Not Equality: Why Distinct University Careers Require Distinctly Negotiated Compensation,”. A healthy university system must allow different perspectives to be expressed openly and respectfully.
The rejoinder is correct on one fundamental point: Teaching and Non-Teaching Senior Members perform different functions. Their qualifications, career pathways, promotion requirements, professional expectations and working arrangements are not identical. We have never argued otherwise.
Our concern, however, has been misunderstood.
The rejoinder also advances several inaccurate and somepropositions that require correction. It treats a formally established arbitration outcome as though it were merely an opportunistic reliance on an old analogy; it invokes qualifications and promotion requirements without demonstrating their connection to the statutory purpose of Market Premium; and it reaches conclusions about relative job value despite the absence of a completed comparative job-evaluation process. These matters go to the foundation of the present debate.
Our original article was neither an attack on Teaching Senior Members nor a demand for identical Market Premiums. We support improvements in the conditions of our colleagues in the Teaching category.
Our concern is with the process, structure and consequences of the current compensation arrangement, particularly the conversion of what was initially an allowance associated with particular circumstances into a permanent factor within the Market Premium framework, at a time when the broader public-sector emoluments architecture is yet to receive the comprehensive review expected from the
Independent Emoluments Commission.
What has occurred should therefore not be presented simply as a basic salary enhancement. The issue concerns the treatment of allowances and other remuneration components within the Market Premium structure. That treatment has implications for the internal relativities of other Senior Members within the same university ecosystem.
Our position is simple: Teaching and Non-Teaching Senior Members perform different work, but that work is complementary and indispensable to the functioning of the public university.
1.Different work does not mean different institutional worth
The rejoinder states that “equal dignity is not identical work; collaboration is not interchangeability; and membership of the broad category called Senior Members does not establish equal qualifications, equal career burden, equal promotion standards, equal labour-market pressures or an entitlement to an identical salary structure.”
We agree, however, that proposition does not answer the question we raised.
We have never claimed that the two streams perform identical work or have identical qualifications, promotion criteria, occupational risks or labour-market pressures. Their differences, however, do not establish that one stream is inherently more valuable.
A university cannot function through teaching alone. Teaching and research depend on administration, finance, internal audit, procurement, ICT, human-resource management, legal services, quality assurance, planning, infrastructure, library services, research administration and other professional functions.
Academic programmes, research and digital teaching require financial, procurement, administrative, ethical, legal and technological systems. The university is therefore an ecosystem of specialised competencies. Difference may justify appropriate differentiation, but it should not be converted into an unsupported institutional hierarchy.
2.Our position is not for identical pay; it is for justifiable differentiation
We accept that different work may attract different compensation. A sound remuneration system should recognize relevant differences in qualifications, responsibilities, scarcity of skills, recruitment and retention pressures, professional risks, working conditions, career burdens and labour-market conditions.
The question is therefore not "Why are Teaching and Non-Teaching Senior Members paid differently?”
The question is, "What objective and evidence-based methodology justifies the magnitude and direction of the difference?”
This distinction is critical.
The Fair Wages and Salaries Commission Act, 2007 (Act 737), gives the FWSC responsibilities relating to job analysis, job evaluation, grading and classification, allowances and benefits, collective bargaining and the development of salary structures, while requiring attention to internal consistency and external competitiveness.
Our request is therefore consistent with the principles of public-sector pay governance. If the present differential is supported by job evaluation, labour-market evidence, recruitment and retention data or other objective criteria, Government should demonstrate it.
If the differential is based on the total remuneration package, then the complete remuneration package of both occupational streams should be compared. That is how a difficult compensation question should be resolved.
The rejoinder asserts that the two streams are not sufficiently identical to justify alignment. That assertion assumes the conclusion it is required to prove. Neither occupational difference nor a description of academic responsibilities establishes the appropriate magnitude of a Market Premium. The decisive evidence should be the applicable job evaluation and labour-market analysis. The rejoinder provides neither.
3.The 2012 harmonised arrangement cannot simply be dismissed as an “old analogy”
The rejoinder suggests that reliance on analogy is outdated and cannot establish entitlement to identical Market Premiums. We agree that analogy does not establish occupational identity. But analogy is not meaningless.
The 2012 relationship was not a casual or informal comparison. In its voluntary arbitration award of 17 December 2012 in Fair Wages and Salaries Commission v. Ghana Association of University Administrators, the Arbitration Panel directed that an Interim Market Premium factor of 1.14, or 114%, should be applied to GAUA members. The Panel explained that this was necessary during migration to the Single Spine Salary Structure to maintain existing university relativities and promote industrial-relations harmony.
The Panel nevertheless described the Interim Market Premium as temporary, distinguished it from a substantive Market Premium intended to attract and retain critical skills in short supply, and recognised that existing relativities could change after proper Market Premium guidelines were developed. The award therefore established a formal migration-related baseline, not permanent salary identity. Subsequent differentiation must be supported by the applicable evidence-based framework.
It is therefore inaccurate to portray the 114% relationship merely as GAUA following benefits independently secured by UTAG. Whatever the earlier bargaining history, GAUA’s 114% Interim Market Premium was ultimately the subject of a formal arbitration between FWSC and GAUA and was expressly awarded to GAUA members. The historical arrangement cannot be rewritten as an informal or automatic extension of another union’s gains.
Government may change the historical relationship, but the basis for a substantial departure should be objectively evaluated and transparently communicated.
The need for a fresh evaluation is further supported by the Arbitration Panel’s observation that both parties had truncated the job-evaluation process. The historical 114% arrangement was therefore not the product of a completed comparative evaluation capable of permanently settling the relative value of the affected jobs. Equally, a new differential should not be presumed justified without demonstrating the updated evaluation and evidence on which it rests.
4.Negotiated gains and government’s system-wide responsibility
We fully recognize the right of UTAG to negotiate on behalf of its members. We do not challenge the legitimacy of collective bargaining, nor do we seek to take away benefits legitimately secured for Teaching Senior Members.
However, Government has a responsibility beyond negotiating separately with individual unions. It is also the employer responsible for ensuring that the cumulative effect of different agreements does not create unintended distortions within the same public institution. This is particularly important in public universities where several occupational groups work together.
A benefit legitimately negotiated by one union can therefore have consequences for internal relativities across the university. This does not invalidate the negotiation; it simply means that the employer must examine the system-wide effect.
Our concern is precisely this cumulative effect. We are not asking that UTAG’s gains be withdrawn. We are asking whether the resulting structure remains internally coherent.
The rejoinder also refers to responsibility allowances and institutional benefits attached to administrative offices. Such benefits should be included in a complete-remuneration comparison, but they should be classified accurately. Benefits attached to offices such as Vice-Chancellor, Pro-Vice-Chancellor, Dean, Director, Head of Department, Registrar or Finance Director arise from the office occupied. A Teaching Senior Member appointed to an administrative office may receive the benefits attached to that office, just as a Non-Teaching Senior Member holding a substantive administrative or professional office may receive office-related benefits. The proper distinction is therefore between occupational-stream benefits and office-based responsibility benefits, not simply between academic and administrative benefits.
5.Experience is not a substitute for qualification and qualification is not a substitute for experience
Qualification and experience are different forms of human capital, and a sound compensation system must recognise each where relevant to the work. We do not argue that experience replaces qualifications or that academic qualifications are unimportant.
The Teaching career places substantial emphasis on academic qualifications, research publication, teaching, supervision and community service. The Non-Teaching career, by contrast, places significant emphasis on professional qualification, institutional experience, administrative competence and progressive responsibility.
A person may possess a PhD but have limited experience managing a university’s financial systems, procurement processes, student records, human resources, legal obligations or institutional administration. Conversely, an experienced administrator may possess extensive institutional knowledge and professional competence without a PhD because a doctorate is not a fundamental requirement for that career pathway.
The important lesson is that qualification opens a professional pathway, while experience, competence and performance determine how effectively one operates within it.
The two career structures are therefore different by design.
We also acknowledge that academic promotion requires sustained publication, teaching, supervision, external assessment and continuing scholarly contribution. The error is to treat their description as proof of the appropriate Market Premium. Promotion requirements may be relevant to job evaluation and the broader salary structure, but a substantive Market Premium is directed principally at attracting and retaining critical skills in short supply.
This distinction was recognised by the 2012 Arbitration Panel, which observed that Market Premium was not determined merely by qualification and that possession of a PhD did not, by itself, demonstrate that the particular skill was critical or scarce. Accordingly, the relevant evidence is not simply that academic promotion is demanding. Government must demonstrate the labour-market scarcity, recruitment and retention considerations used to determine the premium and its magnitude.
6. the medical officer analogy does not establish superiority
The hospital analogy used in the rejoinder also requires clarification.
We agree that different occupations within a hospital should not automatically receive identical compensation. Medical officers, nurses, pharmacists, administrators, accountants, laboratory scientists and engineers perform different professional functions.
But the analogy does not establish that one profession is inherently superior to another.
The university accommodates professionals who pursue academic, administrative or professional-practice careers. The choice of pathway does not, by itself, make one individual institutionally more valuable.
The correct lesson from the hospital analogy is therefore professional complementarity, not occupational hierarchy.
The analogy also does not answer the Market Premium question. A medical officer, pharmacist, engineer, information-technology specialist or other professional may possess a critical skill in short supply, while another job within the same occupational category may not. Eligibility must therefore be determined from evidence about the particular job and labour market, not from a general occupational hierarchy.
7. Working hours and different nature of university work
We acknowledge that academic work does not end when a lecturer leaves the classroom.
Teaching Senior Members undertake research publication, supervision, marking, examination, community service, academic administration, grant development and conferences. These are demanding responsibilities, and we recognize them.
However, Non-Teaching Senior Members also operate under demanding institutional responsibilities. Administrative and professional officers may work beyond normal hours, including evenings, weekends and public holidays when institutional demands require it.
Admissions, examinations, payroll, procurement, infrastructure, ICT, accreditation, graduation, council work and institutional reporting continue throughout the year. Academic flexibility and administrative schedules reflect different forms of work; neither should be used to diminish the other.
8.Research and community service depend on the wider university system
We readily acknowledge that research and community service are fundamental to the university’s mandate. However, research does not happen in an administrative vacuum.
Research projects depend on research administration, finance, procurement, ICT, legal services, quality assurance, ethics, reporting and institutional approvals. Recognising this institutional machinery does not diminish the scholar; it accurately reflects the collective basis of university achievement.
9.The otsa issue requires a policy, not an inter-union, analysis
The Online Teaching Support Allowance (OTSA) provides another important dimension to this debate.
We do not claim that Non-Teaching Senior Members performed the same online teaching functions as Teaching Senior Members. We recognize that online teaching created particular demands for academic staff. Our concern is with the policy treatment of such an allowance.
If an allowance introduced to address particular circumstances is subsequently incorporated into a permanent Market Premium structure, the policy question is whether that transformation has been adequately assessed against the broader compensation system.
Online education itself depends on a wider institutional infrastructure. ICT professionals maintain platforms; Registry personnel process and manage student records; Finance and Procurement facilitate payments and infrastructure; Quality Assurance monitors standards; and academic staff provide the teaching content. The point is not that every category should receive OTSA.
The point is that the conversion of a particular allowance into a permanent Market Premium component should be examined for its consequences on the wider university compensation structure.
The governing agreements and implementation documents should therefore establish the original purpose and status of OTSA, identify the Government and Internally Generated Funds components, and show precisely which components were consolidated into the revised framework. Until that evidence is disclosed, neither side should present assumptions about the conversion as settled fact.
10.Market premium is not basic salary
It is also important to distinguish Market Premium from basic salary. The present debate should not be presented as though Government simply increased the basic salaries of Teaching Senior Members while leaving Non-Teaching Senior Members behind.
Market Premium is a component of public-sector compensation designed within broader remuneration architecture and may respond to labour-market pressures, critical skills, recruitment and retention challenges and other considerations.
The 2012 Arbitration Panel drew an important distinction between Interim Market Premium and substantive Market Premium. It found that the two expressions had been used interchangeably in FWSC documentation, although Interim Market Premium was a temporary migration mechanism connected to pre-migration remuneration and conversion differences. Substantive Market Premium, by contrast, was intended to attract and retain critical skills in short supply.
The Panel further observed that substantive Market Premium should not be applied indiscriminately across an entire service classification because not every job has the same level of criticality. This principle applies to both Teaching and Non-Teaching streams. The correct analysis must therefore identify which jobs are scarce, what recruitment or retention problem exists, and how the amount of the premium was calculated.
The relevant policy question is therefore: What objectively established considerations justify the particular Market Premium attached to each occupational stream?
That is a pay-policy question, not an anti-academic position.
11. equal pay does not mean identical pay for different jobs
We also wish to clarify our reference to equal pay.
Section 68 of the Labour Act, 2003 (Act 651), provides for equal pay for equal work. We do not interpret this provision to mean that Teaching and Non-Teaching Senior Members perform equal work or must receive identical remuneration.
Our argument is narrower: Where different pay is established for different occupational groups, the basis for that differentiation should be rational, relevant, evidence-based and transparent.
We are therefore not asking Government to treat different jobs as identical. We are asking Government to demonstrate why the resulting differences are justified.
12. this is not a contest between teaching and non-teaching senior members
This debate should not be framed as a competition between Teaching and Non-Teaching Senior Members. We neither seek to diminish academic gains nor question the value of teaching, research and scholarship. We ask that the contribution of Non-Teaching Senior Members also be recognised within an objectively justified compensation structure.
Non-Teaching Senior Members include administrators, accountants, lawyers, ICT professionals, planners, auditors, librarians, engineers, architects, procurement professionals, health professionals, quality-assurance officers and other specialists whose responsibilities sustain the university.
We are Senior Members performing different but complementary functions within the same university ecosystem.
Our position again can therefore be reduced to five practical requests:
1. Undertake a comprehensive review of the revised Market Premium structure for Teaching and Non-Teaching Senior Members.
2. Compare the complete remuneration packages, rather than examining Market Premium in isolation.
3. Disclose the methodology and evidence supporting the current differentials, including job evaluation, labour-market considerations, recruitment and retention evidence and the treatment of allowances incorporated into the Market Premium.
4. Complete or update the comparative job evaluation that the 2012 Arbitration Panel recorded had been truncated, and assess the effect of the new arrangement on internal relativities across the university system.
5. Consider proportionate corrective measures where disparities cannot be objectively justified.
This is not a demand for automatic parity. It is a demand for evidence-based equity.
CONCLUSION
Difference should produce fairness, not division.
The rejoinder is right that analogy is not equality. Equally, difference is not superiority, negotiation is not the end of pay governance, and differentiation is not automatically equity.
The debate should move beyond which occupational group works harder or contributes more. The relevant question is whether the compensation architecture is fair, evidence-based, transparent, internally coherent and sustainable.
Our call is not for the withdrawal of benefits granted to Teaching Senior Members. It is for Government to relook at the decision to incorporate what originated as an allowance associated with particular circumstances into a permanent Market Premium arrangement before the broader public-emoluments framework receives the comprehensive review envisaged under the evolving institutional arrangements for public-sector remuneration.
Government, the Ministry of Finance, the Fair Wages and Salaries Commission, the Ghana Tertiary Education Commission and, when operational, the Independent Emoluments Commission should provide the forum for this technical assessment.
A technical review protects everyone. If the current differential is justified, the evidence will establish it; if adjustment is required, the same process will provide a principled basis for correction.
We therefore continue to call for dialogue, transparency, evidence-based job evaluation and a comprehensive review of the revised Market Premium framework.
Our objective is not to prevail over our colleagues, but to ensure that no group is treated unfairly. That is the essence of pay equity.
AUTHORS
Patrice Dzontoh
Senior Assistant Registrar, University of Environment and Sustainable Development
Member, Ghana Association of University Administrators (GAUA)
Michael Osei Owusu
Senior Accountant, Ghana Communication Technology University
Member, Ghana Association of University Administrators (GAUA)
Confidence Kakraba
Senior Assistant Registrar, Ho Technical University
Member, Technical University Senior Administrators Association of Ghana (TUSAAG)
Cynthia Ameyaa Oduro
Senior Assistant Registrar, University of Environment and Sustainable Development
Member, Ghana Association of University Administrators (GAUA)
Copyright © 1994 - 2026 GhanaWeb. All rights reserved.
