MétaCan
Menu
Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W1450779084

Associate salaries increase ... for half the provinces.

2014· article· en· W1450779084 sur OpenAlexaboutno aff
Darren Osborne

Notice bibliographique

RevuePubMed · 2014
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineHealth Professions
ThématiqueVeterinary Practice and Education Studies
Établissements canadiensnon disponible
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésSalaryWageDemographic economicsInflation (cosmology)SeniorityPurchasing powerWages and salariesMedicineDemographyBusinessEconomicsLabour economicsPolitical science
DOInon disponible

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

A midst weak economic numbers coming from veterinary hospitals around the country, associate salaries beat inflation in 5 of 10 provinces. Nationally, the average associate veterinarian experienced a 3% salary increase; 2% better than inflation which is running uncharacteristically low at 1%. Inflation, both nationally and provincially, was down from a high of 3% two years ago; the current rate of 1% nationally and a range of 0% to 3% provincially provides an opportunity for staff veterinarians to get real gains in income even with mediocre wage increases. Any wage increase above the rate of inflation is considered to be a “real economic gain” because it provides the individual with more purchasing power than before. Figures for average associate salaries come from the 2013 Survey of Associate Compensation and Benefits. This survey was conducted by the Canadian Veterinary Medical Association in conjunction with the provincial associations and corporate sponsors, PetSecure, Merck Animal Health, Scotiabank, and Idexx Laboratories. Results are provided for individual provinces (Table 1). Table 1 Comparison of average associate salaries for 2012 and 2013 The 2013 survey was distributed to all associates across the country; 1037 surveys were returned for a 26% response rate. Figures in the report are generally accurate to 2%, 19 times out of 20. Respondents were asked to provide information related to their current salary and benefits from private practice in 2013. The survey examined several characteristics such as type of practice, seniority, and location, and evaluated the effect the characteristics had on salary. Many trends were inconsistent with half the provinces going in one direction and half going in the other. Nationally the average increase of 3% was ahead of inflation but only 5 provinces saw average increases that beat inflation. Alberta surged ahead for the second year with a 5% gain in average associate salaries and with provincial inflation only running at 1%, the real gain for associates amounted to 4%. Last year, the average associate in Alberta experienced a 4% increase in salaries. The other province with higher than average salary increases was New Brunswick with a 6% increase. New Brunswick posted a lower inflation rate of 1% and veterinarians in that province were able to experience an average real gain in salaries of 5%. This was good news considering that last year there was zero growth in associate salaries in New Brunswick. Provinces that experienced decreases in salaries included British Columbia, Newfoundland, and Prince Edward Island. The decrease in wages for these provinces reflects changes in seniority levels in the sample. Consistently, veterinarians with less seniority earn lower salaries and in these 3 provinces, there are smaller samples and more, less-experienced veterinarians reporting than in previous years. It is not expected that individual veterinarians experienced salary cuts. The other 5 provinces experienced real increases in wages between 0% and 2%. Nationally, the real increase in associate salaries was 2%. What is the reason for weak increases? We know from the 2012 Practice Owners Economic Survey (1) that veterinary practices across the country are suffering with declining client numbers and stagnating revenues and under these economic conditions practice owners are less likely to offer higher increases in salaries for staff veterinarians. To counter a weakened market for associate salaries, some associate veterinarians are offering to take on some of the financial risk and it is turning into significant increases in wages. The key factors that contribute to increased salaries for associates include type of practice, location, seniority, and method of payment. In the short run, there is little that can be done to affect demographics or seniority, but associates can change the way they are getting paid. Associates who are paid a commission based on the gross revenue they bring in earn 23% higher full-time salaries than the average. Compensation based on revenue is attractive to the practice owner because the associate is shouldering some of the risk that goes with paying a higher salary. The threat of inconsistent or declining revenues stands in the way of most salary increases. If a practice owner was guaranteed that an associate could attain a revenue target, then they could be more forthcoming with salaries. The problem is what comes first — does the associate wait to hit the revenue target before salary goes up or does the practice owner offer the higher salary and hope the associate makes the revenue target. With commissioned-based pay you get the chicken and egg. The owner gets the assurance that the higher wage will only get paid if the revenue target is met and the associate is guaranteed to get the higher pay when they hit the target. Information on compensation pay rates is available in the Report on Associate Compensation and Benefits (2) offer through the specific provincial veterinary medical associations. Associate salaries increased 3% in 2013. The increase was above the rate of inflation nationally but only half the provinces saw increases above the rate of inflation. A weakened veterinary economy appears to be what is holding back associate salaries and, until the economy turns around, associate veterinarians wanting to beat the odds will have to look to creative payment methods like compensation-based pay.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,001
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Observationnel · Signal consensuel: aucune
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,748
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,500

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0010,002
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0000,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0000,001
Bibliométrie0,0010,002
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0020,001
Communication savante0,0020,001
Science ouverte0,0010,002
Intégrité de la recherche0,0010,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,1230,049

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,220
Tête enseignante GPT0,428
Écart entre enseignants0,209 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeObservationnel
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2014
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revuePubMedMême sujetVeterinary Practice and Education StudiesTravaux en français237 207