| Coalition of University Employees (CUE) | 2855 Telegraph Ave., Suite #302, Berkeley, CA 94705 Contact CUE (510) 845-2221 (phone), (510) 845-7444 (FAX) |
As you may know, CUE disputes UC's withholding of the pay increases owed to clerical employees since October 1998. This is just one of many differences between CUE's and UC's basic attitudes toward wages. This pamphlet deals with those differences and with UC's long-term plans for radical changes in the wage structure for clerical employees.
Our sources for UC's program include the changes made by UC for unrepresented employees, UC's position in bargaining with CUE and other unions, and statements UC has published on this topic.
In 1993, the University published a plan for sweeping changes in personnel policies and pay programs. Since then, large parts of UC's proposed program, which UC called the Human Resources Management Initiatives (HRMI), have been unilaterally implemented for UC employees who do not have union representation. Even for those of us represented by unions, UC has introduced some parts of the program where no contract language prohibits
the changes, and UC has tried to get other parts of the program accepted by unions in the bargaining process. In current bargaining between CUE and UC for a clerical contract, UC has demanded that we accept parts of this new program that deal with our pay.
To divert money from base-building increass to "incentive" increases, Bonuses, and other non-base-building increases. (Base-building raises are those that actually increase the yearly salary rate and raise the amount on which future percentage increases are based. Without base building increases, the basic salary remains the same year after year, and retirement earnings, which are based on salary base rates, are not increased as they would be with base-building increases.) UC started using base-building money for incentive awards several years ago. Management's early HRMI literature indicated that eventually a smaller percentage of our take-home pay would be in base-building awards and more would be in incentive-type awards.
To use all salary money for yearly range adjustments and merit/step base-building increases.
DISCUSSION:
CUE's surveys show that clericals from San Diego to Davis object to the incentive award/bonus program. They have described it as divisive and insulting. Although CUE has heard of small units where guidelines have been adopted that somewhat lessen the unfairness of the awards, the incentive award program is without any systemwide standards for fairness, and it is administered differently on every campus/location, often in
different units. And no matter how it is administered, the incentive award program is a reward/punishment system and is ineffective in terms of morale or productivity. A study of incentive award programs published in the Fall 1993 Harvard Business Review concluded, "Bribes in the workplace simply can't work."
Further, these programs cost us all income in the long-term, even those of us who receive awards. Although UC no longer emphasizes this aspect of the program, cost-savings have been a goal since the program was begun. A 1994 UC document on HRMI said "... long-range planning will require, among other things, finding ways to reduce administrative costs .... It must respond ... by making unprecedented and fundamental changes in the structure and delivery of its administrative services."
CUE's preferred system acknowledges the need for pay raises for all employees, including those who work out of the public eye, diligently doing routine work that may not get the special recognition needed for a special incentive or bonus award. We prefer a system that discourages, not encourages, favoritism. We believe that we can do our jobs more
effectively if we are not competing with each other for pay raises that we all so desperately need. We know how demoralizing it is to take home the same base salary year after year, while we see administrators and faculty receiving regular and large pay raises.
To combine the summer/fall "range adjustments," sometimes called "cost-of-living increases," with the individual employee merit or step increases, so that each employee can hope for only one increase each year, at best. In this program, when UC refers to a "range adjustment," it means increasing the top and bottom step of the salary ranges, not necessarily increasing an individual's pay rate. This program has been implemented for
many of UC's unrepresented employees, and their complaints about it are widespread.
To maintain the present system, in which there are two kinds of increases: the annual range adjustments, increasing everyone's pay by a certain percentage or amount (these annual range adjustments were 5% until the early 1990s and 2-4% since then) and the step increases (usually approximately 5% for satisfactory work) for employees who have not reached the top of their range.
DISCUSSION:
We have seen that the combined pay increases for employees covered by UC's new program (the unrepresented employees) average FAR less than 5%. UC simply saves money by reducing staff pay increases in this way. CUE believes that all employees are entitled to at least a minimum across-the-board range adjustment each year, as is currently the case with the cost of living increases. In addition, increases in the form of steps should continue for as long as possible in each employee's career.
To introduce a "broad band" (or salary range) of pay levels for each job title with a "control figure" limiting actual increases for all classifications. This would replace steps in the present system. The bands are an integral part of the program already implemented for unrepresented staff.
While keeping the step system, to add steps above the present steps and add longevity increases to reward experienced employees who stay on the job for many years.
DISCUSSION:
At first glance, the "broad band" system looks good, because it seems that staff now at their top step would be able to progress to a higher salary level. It also seems that this system would allow you to get a generous raise if you are an outstanding employee with a supervisor who wants you to get a large raise. But the truth of the matter is that as UC has designed the band system, employees rated "satisfactory" and better do not necessarily receive raises that bring them higher than mid-point in the bands. According to UC's own description, "The midpoint of the range is the approximate average salary at which most of the experienced, seasoned, professional staff members in a title will cluster, usually after being in the position for several years. This point is intended for those employees who are fully experienced and consistently meet expectations in their position." In other words, under the current system, which we prefer, good employees receive merit increases until they reach the top of their range, while under UC's plan they would be trapped at the mid-point of the salary range.
The control figure, which can be different on each campus or can be different in different units on one campus, can be used to limit larger increases. As we have seen with unrepresented employees, in recent years control figures have been as low as 3% and 3.5% on one campus, and they have been used to justify even lower pay increases.
To switch to a "pay for performance" system, in which there would be no annual range adjustment for all employees, and no set steps for pay raises. An individual's single increase is determined by a method that varies somewhat from campus to campus, and even between different part of one campus or location. Generally, the increase is based on the recommendation of a supervisor or a committee, and on a "control figure" which effectively allows for a low or 0% increase and is often used to disallow larger increases. This program has also been implemented for employees without a union contract, some of whom have dubbed it the "arbitrary pay" plan.
To keep the present system, with possible pay increases of approximately 2.5% (a half step), 5% (a full step), and 7.5% (a step and a half). At present clerical titles have 5 full steps, but CUE is proposing to add more steps at the top of each range.
DISCUSSION:
Despite its imperfections, the present step system is based on the idea that satisfactory employees are entitled to a pay raise, usually of about 5%, at least until they reach the top step for their title. With the present system, a satisfactory employee can count on a total of about 20% in increases in the first five or so years of employment. (This does not include "range adjustments" that are across-the-board raises for all staff.)
UC's proposed system invites a free-for-all in terms of supervisor recommendations - with unchecked favoritism, office politics, or discrimination playing out in individual wage recommendations of any percentage, or with fair recommendations being overruled by a committee. Indeed, employees with strong recommendations from their supervisors have
been disappointed to learn that a committee of people unknown to them and unfamiliar with their work has overruled those recommendations, citing the control figure.
To set general pay levels according to market rates, that is, what the employers in that area generally pay.
To decrease differences between pay rates at different campuses, not increase them. CUE favors making changes in basic pay rates by objective standards such as those used in comparable worth studies, including factors as education, experience, and skills needed for the job.
DISCUSSION:
A market rate system (used by UC in the past), sounds more fair than it turns out to be. For instance, who set the market rate in a relatively small or isolated location like Santa Cruz or Davis? In those places, UC is the largest employer and sets the rate - as low as it can. Who defines the market? Does it includes banks and insurance companies, infamous for low pay and for following wages patterns that are based on sex discrimination? Take child care workers as an example: Although UC should pay them much more than it does, it is also true that outside agencies often pay much less. A market-based program could be cited by UC to cut their pay or limit increases. Market wages end up importing problems of unequal pay for gender or race reasons into the University.
$ $ $ $ $ $ $
CUE asks the question: why should clericals, among the lowest paid of UC's employees, agree to make the sacrifices this program requires? Our salaries come from the state budget and from grants and contracts, which have not experienced any overall shortfall. Indeed, in August 1998, UC President Atkinson declared the 1998-99 budget to be "the best budget of the decade for the University of California." Scores of UC's highest paid employees are paid over $100,000 annually, and many of UC's top administrators just received pay increases of 18% - on top of their extravagant basic compensation.
CUE believes that clericals need and deserve better pay, not worse. We call for a fair distribution of UC's salary money. We urge every one of UC's 18,000 clerical employees to tell UC which program you prefer -- and the clearest way to make that statement is by joining CUE now, before UC prolongs the bargaining process further.
CUE's pay program for the future is based on our surveys of UC clerical staff on every campus. CUE also believes that there is no legal justification for UC's refusal to pass on to clericals the 2% increases in fall 1998. If you prefer CUE's wage program to UC's, we hope you will help give CUE the power in bargaining that a large membership can provide.
1. CUE proposes a wage program to recover the 6.7% that has been lost to inflation over the last 5 years and to give clericals a real salary increase. This would take the form of at least 14% spread over 3 years.
2. The step system should be retained, with single steps being approximately 5%.
3. There should be three steps added to the top of each existing salary range.
4.Employees who have been at the top of their range for 5 years should receive a longevity increase of 5% every five years.
5. End the incentive award system and use those funds to support base-building increases, more steps and longevity raises.
6. When determining step increases of 1/2 step, 1 step, and 1 1/2 step, a guideline shall be that an employee receiving a satisfactory performance evaluation should receive a one-step increase.
7. Shift differentials should be extended to all clerical titles, and a weekend differential should be add to the evening and night shift differentials, both of which should be increased.
8. UC should pay for an independent study to determine the extent of gender-based salary inequities between UC employees who do work with comparable educational and skill requirements.
9. The pay differences that exist between campuses should be gradually narrowed, by application of special inequity adjustments to the lower rates.
10. Positions requiring use of a foreign language or American Sign Language should be paid an additional bilingual differential.
11. Money made available to UC for clerical salaries should be used for clerical salaries, not for other expenses or salaries for other groups.
12. UC's Lawrence Berkeley National Lab should adopt a pay system consistent with the principles outlined here.