ПРОГРАММА ПОЭТАПНОГО СОВЕРШЕНСТВОВАНИЯ СИСТЕМ ОПЛАТЫ ТРУДА В ГОСУДАРСТВЕННЫХ (МУНИЦИПАЛЬНЫХ) УЧРЕЖДЕНИЯХ НА 2012–2018 ГОДЫ
This monograph aims at analyzing the minimum wage and 'effective contract' legislation in international context, taking into account both historical and modern peculiarities in general and with a particular emphasis on public service. This analysis being performed from a comparative viewpoint, allowed the authors to assess the legislative amendments suggested by the legislator against the labour legislation currently in force. It has also helped to throw light onto the gaps and conflicts in the minimum wage and 'effective contract' regulation and common errors in its enforcement. The authors formulated their own suggestions concerning further legislation development in this field. This monograph was prepared with information support of the "ConsultantPlus" electronic legal database system.
The paper deals with an up-to-date problem related to improvement of effective education in the terms of transition of teaching staff of the higher-educational system to effective contract. A number of models for assessment of teaching efficiency of scientific-teachіng staff of higher educational institutions are proposed. A role of the up-to-date educational technologies in the improvement of quality of the higher professional education is shown.
The article presents the current practices of system of remuneration for university teaching staff in higher educational institutions in Russia. The research was based on 51 in-depth interviews in the 6 universities and included the analysis of 100 universities’ local acts of the wage system. The main question of the article is: what are the differences in the remuneration systems in the 6 higher education institutions and why these differences occur. We claim that the universities’ remuneration systems are formed under the impact of 4 factors: 1) external formal accountability to the federal and regional governments; 2) strategic goals of the university (which are often formed as a university response to external accountability); 3) the financial resources of the university; 4) its internal features: the number of university teaching staff, centralized or decentralized management, the number of departments of the university and its’ profiles.