Ont. public sector workers in bargaining - don't accept zero
Not that we would. ;)
But when upper management tries to tell you that their wages are being frozen this year and that they're getting "zero", remind them that they're still getting bonuses and merit increases.
It's going to be a tough year for public sector workers who are bargaining, but we shouldn't accept that we have to pay for the bankers' financial crisis and the government bailouts.
As my union president says:
In effect, the minister is saying that the worker who takes the bus to her job as a $20,000-a-year casual at the LCBO is responsible for the deficit, while the guy who drives his BMW to a $950-a-plate McGuinty fundraiser is not.
Nothing could be further from the truth.
Public sector wages in Ontario are far from being too high. Our overall public spending is the second-lowest of any province or territory in Canada.
Corporate taxes in this province are not too high. They are the same as U.S. rates.
But polling shows that many voters believe our spending is too high, and many believe corporate tax cuts create jobs. (In fact, they are one of the least effective things a government can do to create jobs.)
People believe these things because it is what they are told, day after day, by corporate-owned think tanks, right-wing bloggers, and the conservative news editors who support an employer’s agenda, not a people’s agenda. But just because people believe something doesn’t make it true.
Why not ask for merit increases when bargaining? Individual employers' hands could be tied with regard to ATB increases, but you could always ask for the loophole.
Because we don't want to have to depend on management to decide individually who deserves a raise and who doesn't. Too easy to abuse such a system. Especially when you know that managers will most likely be using the merit increases on each other this year for more than "merit" and simply as cost of living increases since their wages are frozen. Which is fine with me - none of my business how managers manage each other. :) If that's the only way they can get a fair increase, then I'm not going to object, as along as I don't have to take zero (which is actually a DECREASE in real wages since the cost of living doesn't freeze).
The point of collective bargaining is to get a fair increase for everyone, not just the people who suck up to their managers best. We might as well not have a collective agreement if managers can just bargain with us individually each year on our wages.
Fair enough. But your OP seemed to suggest that a merit bonus was an enviable perk that management retains. Now you're saying it sucks and nobody would want it?
I didn't say it sucks or that no one should want it. I'm saying that they're not accepting a zero increase, and if they're not, then neither should we. (And actually, we shouldn't even if they are - none of our business what they decide to do money-wise with their own salaries - doesn't mean we should do it with ours, even if they ARE accepting zero for real.)
And I'm saying that we should not allow managers to bargain individually with members on matters of pay. That doesn't mean that I don't think managers are benefiting from merit increases.
...another thread suffers a drive-by snerting...
Every single issue involved in this recession originated with the financial sector - even the government deregulation that they lobbied for, all the way back to Mulroney-Reagan-Thatcher days. Where are the calls for repayment by and regulation of these casino capitalists? Why are public sector workers made the scapegoats once again?
I'm actually fine with what Snert posted. They're questions I have asked in the past too. The only way I learned what the labour perspective is was when I asked questions. I suspect that a lot of people who aren't unionized and who might be losing their jobs or settling for zero increases will be asking the same thing, and it's good to get the answers out there.
Why not ask for merit increases when bargaining? Individual employers' hands could be tied with regard to ATB increases, but you could always ask for the loophole.
I'm in the same union as Michelle (cheers, Michelle!) and recall when the issue of merit pay came up during bargaining for the collective agreement previous to the current one (4-5 years ago; something like that). I brought the question to babble, and unionist explained it really well; any errors here are in my recollection. If I remember correctly, when you arrive at a collective agreement, it's a standard package of wages and benefits, and when you bring in merit pay, you're violating the agreement by offering higher pay to individual workers on an ad hoc basis.
Basically, in a union setting, if you want to get paid more because you do a better job, the way to accomplish that is to get a promotion.
Okay. But then can you explain to me wanting to get paid more without doing a better job? I'm referring to a yearly "raise" that's similar to a merit bonus, but without the merit (I'm specifically NOT talking about a cost of living increase).
What's the rationale for an employee getting what amounts to a merit increase every year "just because"? Shouldn't an employee who wants a raise do as you suggest and work toward a promotion?
I do sincerely wish these public service works luck in maintaining a fair wage.
Perhaps I'm just nitpicking but things I'd like clairified:
Blanket statements condemning banks. The latest financial crisis was very much one that originated in the American banking sector through deregulation and mismanagement. Canadian banks were largely insulated from the situation and certainly not a cause of the latest recession. If anything this seems to demonstrate the value in properly regulating and carefully evaluating the demands of the financial services sector.
The bailout paid by the Canadian government was to the also mismanaged auto industry, which I suppose was alluded to in the OP. I wasn't on babble when the issue first came up so I don't really what the babble attitude towards the bailout was. It doesn't seem to be brought up much any more.
I'm willing to admit that the privately owned and operated financial sector has it's weaknesses. It is my belief that with the proper (attainable) conditions this industry can positively contribute to society. I don't expect everyone here to agree with me on this point but that's a conversation to be held else where.
I'd like to know if it's the opinion of most of the people here that the unionised auto sector jobs warrant the occassional government intervention to be protected while the 1.1 million jobs of the financial services sector do not.
If I'm being accused of taking food out of the mouth of the unionised worker by working in financial services I'd like to know. Sorry for the thread drift.
As far as I know, progression through the pay scale for each classification under the OPS CA is already technically linked to merit, although this provision is usually not applied. In any case with all the jobs cut from the OPS under Harris, seniority is high overall, so with so many of the (new or reconstituted) higher-wage jobs going to AMAPCEO by default, a lot of OPS workers are already at the top of their pay scale.
Managers have a whole different bonus system that is worth a lot more money to them every year, tied to meeting random performance and expenditure goals.
Perhaps somewhere this is true, but at my workplace, the top merit bonus for management staff is 3%, recommended for management staff who not only meet, but exceed all of their performance goals for the previous year. The PTR adjustment for unionized staff is also 3%, and this is guaranteed to any employee, regardless of performance.
Your salary is fixed, yes? By that I mean, under no system are you required to "negotiate" that salary each year. But a raise isn't your salary. You're definitely entitled to your salary, but where does any entitlement to a regular increase in that salary originate? Again, I'm not referring to a cost of living adjustment, I'm referring to a raise. Is everyone entitled to a raise, just for existing, and if so, why?
Well, where I work ;), members have cost of living increases and "step increases" (so, a job might pay between $40,000 and $50,000, the lowest step being $40,000, and the upper being $50,000). Each job grade has maybe six to eight steps in it (I think). Each year on your anniversary date, you move up a step until you get to the top step. Then you just get cost of living increases because you've topped out your step increases.
Having started in the middle of the steps in my grade, I have now reached the top step. So I get no step increases other than cost of living. There are no merit increases.
So yes, we are all entitled to that step increase "just for existing" (well, actually, because the more time you spend in a job, the assumption is that you get better at understanding it and the systems in place), but after we reach the top, we get cost of living increases only, "just for existing".
p-sto, I don't think anyone has any issue with the workers in the banking sector. If anything, it's too bad they haven't banded together and unionized, because certainly there are lots of people who work for banks who are taken advantage of shamefully with wages, benefits, and retirement plans. And if anyone could get public sympathy for good collective agreements, it's workers whose bosses are making a zillion times more than the lowest paid of them, the way it is in the banking sector, where the tellers and lower admin staff get paid shit wages, while the CEO's are raking in millions.
I would go a bit further and suggest that we should all get COL adjustments not "just for existing" but because without them your real salary goes down each year of positive inflation. Given that (as far as I can tell) the government will be freezing COLAs, I hope they have a similar plan for freezing inflation.
But it's still not clear to me where the idea of a default, yearly raise comes from. I won't even say I haven't benefitted from such. But if someone had asked me "why do you deserve a raise every year?" I don't think I would have been able to rationalize it. Your suggestion that it's on the basis of continual improvements in performance is interesting, but a bit unrealistic, IMHO. I've known and worked with too many chair-warmers to believe that performance improvement can be achieved simply by osmosis, or accident.
The problem with all "merit" based systems is preventing them from being "brown noser" systems. Managers often reward their friends because they see their positive qualities but tend to only see the negative qualities of the squeaky wheels. It is often the squeaky wheels that a company should be listening to instead of the suck ups trying to get merit increases.
The other problem is how much is too much and how little is too little. If the starting wage is really low then for a company to have any hope of keeping long term employees that wage has to increase in stepped increments or the company gets a continual revolving door employee shuffle. There are few businesses and even fewer government services that can withstand the constant turn over of employees.
The main problem is employers in our modern retail service sector seldom pay a living wage. It is very trendy these days to attack any non-professional worker who makes a living wage because most others don't. That is just perverse in my view. We should be demanding better pay for the others not demanding a justification for being the only working class workers left as part of what we used to call the middle class.
If a job is worth doing it is worth the person doing it making enough money to live!! Full stop no exceptions. If that happened no one would think that unionized workers were over paid.
In my workplace, Snert, there is no "yearly raise" beyond simply moving through the steps of your position. Heck, I'd have been fine with being hired at the top step of my classification and staying that way for the past three and a half years instead of starting from the middle. I'm assuming it benefits the employer to start low and move higher - that way they don't have to pay everyone the top rate.
kropotkin is right - the problem with merit increase systems is not only that you go back to each member individually bargaining their compensation with the employer, but also because even with the nicest, fairest manager, they are still human, they will still have personality conflicts with some people, and more assertive people will have their merit recognized more readily than those who are more reticent. And also, is it fair if your nice and fair manager gives you a decent merit increase, while so-and-so in the next department who has a jerk for a manager gets nothing?
Not to mention that there is also a gender and race issue to the question. A while back, we had a thread on babble where a study was posted saying that not only do women tend not negotiate assertively for higher wages the way men do, but that those women who do are perceived by their employers more negatively than men who do. In a "merit increase" system, you can bet that this would lead to inequities. And I'm betting the same holds true for people of colour compared to white people.
So the step increases ensure that everyone is treated the same when it comes to wages. There are other ways to recognize contributions over and above the call of duty, although I think people need to break that down when they talk about exceeding expectations - does that mean working overtime for free, or working through lunch breaks, or stuff like that? What exactly do we, as labour-friendly people, feel employees should have to do over and above what they're being paid to do?
But if someone's performance is great, then there are ways to recognize that. Like positive letters to the employee and their employee file. Recognition awards. And, of course, good references when employees want to move on to higher-level positions within the company or elsewhere.
And, of course, there are also consequences for poor performance too, as long as managers do their job. With proper documentation and progressive discipline, employees will have a chance to improve and if they don't, there's nothing the union can do to force the employer to keep them.
Exactly. How is that NOT a raise?
The solution to this is to have a set of mutually agreed upon, clear, MEASURABLE goals against which to measure merit. If this were all about a supervisor and their "gut feeling" about an employee, or about employees having to put together a sales pitch on their own behalf, I'd certainly agree that that's going to guarantee unfair situations.
In some ways I think it's similar to the question of how, say, a Literature professor can possibly grade student essays without being biased toward students they like, or toward positions they agree with. The answer is a rubric of measurable performance, so it becomes more a case of "did the writer identify the key themes of the novel?" rather than "do I like this student and what's my sense of their achievement?".
Speaking only for my own workplace, working free overtime doesn't count as exceeding objectives unless one of your objectives was "work 40 hours a week". :)
More like, if one of your objectives was to produce training documentation for a software application, and you provide an searchable online document that can be exported to PDF, RTF and DOC, as well as printed on demand, that might be seen as "above and beyond".
But here's where I think our communication keeps breaking down. Even management employess are NOT REQUIRED to do anything above and beyond what they're paid to do. They just don't get a PERFORMANCE bonus if they phone it in. To be clear, the bonus is a BONUS, not the salary they're paid to do their job. The bonus has the potential to increase an employee's base salary, but the bonus itself is, if you want to think of it this way, PAY above and beyond the call of duty.
During the salary freeze, perhaps Dalton could use these to recognize adequacy as well then! Who wants some boring old step up the grid when they could have a letter in their file saying "Dear Employee, thanks for being YOU!". :)
You'd have to ask Wall Street and high street bankers. Or CEOs and CFOs of corporations run into the ground while they award themselves fat bonuses and out of this world remuneration. Or Dalton McGuinty or even Steve and his Bay Street hirelings. In fac, with the amount of national debt they piled on and laid waste to the economy in the 1980s and 1990s, Mulroney, Chretien and Martin should have been fired off the job by uz taxpayers had they run a corporation similarly. It's no wonder voters are frustrated.
In the states, hahaha, they have taco bell managers making more money than pilots. Real estate brokers making more than engineers. Capitalism is one screwed up ideology.
Where I work and places I've worked in the past, there's a grid you work your way up through, seperate from any cost of living increases. Been at the top of mine for ages now. I'm guessing that the rationale is that with experience on the job you become more self sufficient in your work, and give more to the job. Presumably, after 5 years you're as good as you're gonna get. Without quibbling about the specific timelines, at least in my line of work there's some merit to that. The years of experience I have means I can offer a lot more in terms of working independantly, doing training, a wider range of committee stuff, and generally being one who can help rather than needing help.
Well, Michelle,
I agree that a wage freeze should be a real wage freeze, in the sense that salaries should at least be increased by inflation.
Furthermore, not everyone gets a step increase, some people have maxed their steps for instance.
However, I think the assumption that an employee automatically brings additional expertise by being in the same position for multiple years. Certainly in some cases that is true, and others it is not.
While there is some danger of employers abusing performance based bonuses, unions really tie employers hands when it comes to rewarding/penalizing employees. As long as employees meet the minimum standards for performance/attendance etc, then they are entitled to the same bonuses that an employee far exceeding the minimum standards.
While you cite career advancement as a potential reward, many unions restrict that as well.
Often, there is a standard KSA assessment, done on a pass or fail basis, and if multiple people pass, the position is then awarded on the basis of seniority, thus removing all incentive for people to work any harder than meeting the minimum requirements.
While nepotism can run rampant, there should be some ability of management to reward their employees directly to some degree. Otherwise an environment is created where the hard-working employees are angry that the employees barely meeting the minimums are rewarded the same. It can create a poisonous atmosphere.
A good workplace environment creates a balance between guarding against nepotism and rewarding hard-working employees. In order to this, trust needs to be given to both employees and employers.
1. Lengthy increment ladders to reach the top salary step are a characteristic of the public service. They wouldn't be tolerated in most private sector contexts, except for situations where time is objectively needed to learn the job (like an apprenticeship). Otherwise, spending your first few years earning less than the more senior person, irrespective of whether you can do the job "as well" or better or worse, is a thinly disguised form of cheap labour and (often) discrimination against youth.
2. Why should workers get raises "annually" (even though they don't) regardless of whether they're adding more value, etc.? For exactly the same reason that the price of a basket of commodities rises annually (sometimes by a lot, sometimes by a little - it's called the CPI). Have tomatoes done anything to "deserve" the annual increase in their price, measured over the last couple decades? Not according to my taste buds. But the cost of production has increased, for a host of reasons. Same with absolutely everything else. So, wages - which represent the cost of labour-power - must also reflect the cost of producing and reproducing workers, without which no one will staff the places the produce goods and services. Workers eat tomatoes, they wear socks, they pay rent or mortgages, etc. All these are part of the cost of maintaining existing workers and producing new replacement ones. So, when the cost of the recipe ingredients rises, so must the cost of the final finished gourmet dish.
Don't thank me. It was some German economist who first figured out this truth.
And, if you check certain periods of Canadian history, you will find significant slices of time when wages, on average, rose less than the CPI, meaning workers - who did no worse a job than before - were able to buy less for the same work performed.
Unions exist, among other things, to push the envelope, and ensure that the labour market operates to pay workers at the higher end rather than at or below the bottom end of the range. That doesn't mean that unions, no matter how mean and militant, can get labourers' wages up to the level of carpenters, or physicians - because in the final analysis, the cost of producing and maintaining a carpenter or physician is higher.
Wouldn't it primarily be inflation that makes everything cost a little more today than it did a year or two ago? And isn't inflation accounted for in salaries or wages when there's a Cost Of Living Adjustment in place?
If so, how would a PTR adjustment, on top of a COL adjustment, NOT be a raise? What, then, would it be? It's not a correction to take into account the CPI, if the COLA already does that.
Wouldn't it primarily be inflation that makes everything cost a little more today than it did a year or two ago?
Whatever causes inflation, it affects labour power as much as lettuce and drywall.
I haven't seen a COLA anywhere, except the auto industry, for decades. In the federal public service and crown corporations, for example, they were actually banned in 1982 by Bill C-124 - and I've never heard of anyone getting them back. The "Big 3" auto companies had a form of COLA, but I wonder whether that survived the concessions meltdown. As for the overwhelming majority of workers, unionized or not, they most certainly do not enjoy automatic inflation protection of any kind. They have to bargain an annual increase just to protect their past purchasing power.
Ya got me, Snert. I thought I'd seen it all. What is a PTR when it's not at home!??
Perhaps my workplace is an anomaly, but we've always received a yearly COLA of 2-3% (generally called our ATB adjustment -- Across The Board) in addition to either a PTR raise for OPSEU staff or a potential merit bonus for management staff. So for us, the PTR is not an attempt to account for a shrinking real dollar.
What do you mean by "PTR"?
I just googled it (wasn't that obvious). It means "progress-through-the-ranks". Is that the same as the increment stepladder I was describing as being virtually unique to the public service, Snert? I.e., you start at a certain rate in your govt. classification, then rise through the pay table every year automatically for (x) years till you achieve the top rate and plateau there? I've seen as few as 4 and as many as 11 steps in such tables. They are what I described as a public service abomination, they're essentially an excuse for cheap labour and discrimination against young workers, and a naked violation of "equal pay for work of equal value". If that's what PTR means... Trust me, I've never seen it in the private sector, except for brief initial hire periods where experience really does add to the value of the work.
Merit increases are essentially the same as progressing through the pay range for a position, except that they aren't necessarily as automatic. In my job there is a step system for about the first five years, after that it's a more clear merit system - you get a lower, medium or higher increase based on performance, and the overwhelming majority of employees are required to receive the medium amount. Experience makes a big difference in how well you are able to do many jobs - those with seniority are paid more because they can do more.
If merit increases were taken away from non-unionized positions, you could then expect the province to take a negotiating position that people should be frozen at their current step when it comes time for contract negotiations. That would not be helpful for positive labour relations.
The grey - are you referring to (a) public service, and (b) unionized or non-unionized, when you described the 5-year step system followed by "merit"? I'm asking because I have never heard of such a thing in any unionized private sector situation - not even in crown corporations. But I haven't seen everything, so I'm interested to learn.
So easy to argue merit increases but oh so foolish.
Michelle my comment likely didn't belong here at least not how I presented it, however your response is appreciated. Perhaps I just haven't been looking in right place but it feels like a lot more attention on babble has gone towards speaking about how horrible the financial services industry is. With very few exceptions I've missed any serious discourse as to how to improve things.
More to the point what set me off was this statement
I don't believe it was your intention but this comes off as very divisive. It assigns blame and implies your union to be separate. I quite liked the statement made by your union president. He describes the validity of the current deficit and states that a pay increase in both a small and justified expenditure. An article in the globe on monday that said 60% of CEOs said that they felt an increase in taxes is justified in response to the current deficit could have also been used to further your position.
Manufacturing, agriculture, natural resources and transportation were all hit brutally hard last year. Increases in employment in both the financial sector and the public sector hide the fact that in both these sectors there have been areas that have experienced cuts.
A significant number of people, of all kinds of employment, that I spoke to last year described an atmosphere of increased tension at work. This is if they were fortunate enough to be working.
I'm likely being over sensitive the nuance of you text. But I'm bothered that the conversation has started on divisive tones when it could have easily started by saying that the economic crisis has created suffering in all sectors and this is an opportunity for that trend change with OPSEU.
Sorry, I guess it could be a bit idiosyncratic to my organization. "Progression Through the Range". Basically what Unionist described. You're hired into a position with a pay grade (based on a giant, exhaustive document called the Position Description Questionnaire) that sets your base pay. Then, each year on the anniversary of hiring, you progress through the salary range. I checked our own grid of salaries and each step is +3%.
Thanks, Snert. Yes, it's a public service pre-unionization concoction which has survived through the decades since the 60s when public service workers gained the right to bargain. No union in its right mind would create a system like this from scratch. The number of steps should be reduced and ultimately abolished IMHO, except where they correspond to actual verifiable training, education, certification accomplishments.
As far as paying more senior workers more because they have more "experience"? That's a vulgarization of how seniority works. The purpose of seniority is to give priority to preferred jobs (qualifications being sufficient), priority to staying at work during layoffs, and generally negating favoritism. Paying more for "experience" is actually a disguised method of paying newer workers less despite the fact that they do the same job (and may well do it "better").
Likewise, any form of "merit" or "performance" pay is anathema to unionized environments. People doing the same job are paid the same. Full stop. If they're not competent or qualified to work up to accepted norms, you coach them, train them, accommodate them, or ultimately move them or demote them or fire them. Likewise, piece work is anathema. Anything else makes workers compete for favours, and guess who benefits.
Sorry, Snert, just hadn't heard that particular acronym before. I've heard it called "step increases" not "PTR".
In the OPS they call it a merit increase.
Merit pay is one step away from open shop...
The bailout paid by the Canadian government was to the also mismanaged auto industry, which I suppose was alluded to in the OP. I wasn't on babble when the issue first came up so I don't really what the babble attitude towards the bailout was. It doesn't seem to be brought up much any more.
I'm willing to admit that the privately owned and operated financial sector has it's weaknesses. It is my belief that with the proper (attainable) conditions this industry can positively contribute to society. I don't expect everyone here to agree with me on this point but that's a conversation to be held else where.
I'd like to know if it's the opinion of most of the people here that the unionised auto sector jobs warrant the occassional government intervention to be protected while the 1.1 million jobs of the financial services sector do not.
If I'm being accused of taking food out of the mouth of the unionised worker by working in financial services I'd like to know. Sorry for the thread drift.
I don't know what you do in the financial sector, but I do wonder why you take criticism of the banksters so personally, p-sto. I hope it's not caused by guilt.
I do know that the 75 billion dollar bankster bailout dwarfed that of the auto sector, though. And that both the banksters and their neocon enablers in the Harper government got away lucky when there was virtually no devaluation in the Canadian real estate market. Helped them both hide the fact that they'd started playing the same casino games that got the Yanqui's in deep doo-doo...
Likewise, any form of "merit" or "performance" pay is anathema to unionized environments. People doing the same job are paid the same. Full stop. If they're not competent or qualified to work up to accepted norms, you coach them, train them, accommodate them, or ultimately move them or demote them or fire them. Likewise, piece work is anathema. Anything else makes workers compete for favours, and guess who benefits.
I'm not sure that's so. There can be merit pay given to everyone (or not) based on high-level targets. Even better if the targets are negotiated with the union.
That's not merit pay - it's "gain-sharing" or profit-sharing or the like, based on groups or departments or company-wide, in various permutations. To the extent that it's harmless (i.e. doesn't replace real and necessary percentage wage increases), employers have tended to get rid of them as an unjustified cost. Isn't the Vale Inco dispute over such an issue (the nickel premium I believe)?
Anyway, pay based on performance, whether of an individual, a group, or the whole, doesn't survive long, either because it shafts the workers (and thus the union defeats its prupose by demanding general wage increases anyway), or as I mentioned vice versa.
Maybe academia is too weird a work environment to serve as an example, but at York University, there is a form of merit pay for faculty members, even though they are unionized. From what I could tell from the collective agreement, the merit pay does not come in the form of an increase in base salary (as it does at the U of Toronto) but rather comes in the form of $2000 or a $3000 "merit award". See here. Merit awards for faculty members in the professorial stream (for example) are based on research/scholarly/creative/professional contributions, teaching, and service to the University and professionally related community service.
My possibly flawed understanding is that this has been going on for years, and that it is supported by the union members (at any rate, it's supported by the union members that I have spoken to, though I haven't done a survey). I don't think that, in this case, the merit pay "shafts the workers".
I wouldn't accept zero.
SD BEd
LTJ, I didn't really take it personally at first but I find it's starting to wear on me. People have rightfully pointed that most if the bailout money goes into executives' pockets. There doesn't seem to be much mention to the fact that without these bailouts a lot of jobs would be lost. I'd prefer to see criticisms around the bailouts more focused on ensuring companies are properly managed and perhaps even that money is more fairly distributed. I'm not really seeing point of the whole bailout=wrong attitude that's being tossed around.
I wouldn't like zero, but I could live with it if my employer were losing money as fast as the Ontario government is.
I could support merit pay in that setting because it's based on objective measures, and the rewards seem to be based on specific markers of achievement, like publishing papers in scholarly journals. If I interpreted you correctly, you don't get a pay raise that applies in an ongoing way, just these awards on a sporadic basis, depending on what you've done lately. But where I work, in the Ontario Public Sector, the measure of an employee's performance is the judgement of one's boss. For myself, my evaluations have been generally good, but I have had numerous bosses in 13 years, and there's a bit of variation depending on how well the boss liked me - my point is, if there's only subjective measures of competence, it's extremely difficult to evaluate people in a way that's completely fair across the board.
I guess I should clarify that I have no problem with evaluating people, as fairly and objectively as possible, in how well they do their job.
It's rather the notion that of two people doing the same work, the one who scores higher should then be able to buy more groceries.
Maybe we should charge user fees for K-12 education, then give money back based on exam marks.
The grey - are you referring to (a) public service, and (b) unionized or non-unionized, when you described the 5-year step system followed by "merit"? I'm asking because I have never heard of such a thing in any unionized private sector situation - not even in crown corporations. But I haven't seen everything, so I'm interested to learn.
Ontario public service, unionized. Step increases through entry level classification based on merit assessment, followed by promotion to next classification with percentage based merit awards.
In some jobs it is easy to say that everyone in a job is doing essentially the same work. In other jobs it's clear that those with more experience will have developed more expertise and be responsible for more difficult assignments, and also be able demand a much higher level of pay in the private sector. If everyone gets the same salary, it would mean either substantially overpaying less experienced employees, or substantially underpaying more experienced employees, or more likely both at the same time.
Suppose that people are doing different work, rather than the same work. Then do you think it's OK if one of the two gets to buy more groceries? (Correct me if I'm wrong, but in many unionized environments, workers with more seniority get to buy more groceries, even if they're doing the same work.)
Some people do think it's a good idea to pay teachers in part based on their students' standardized test scores. Aside from the problem you mention, IMO this will also only lead to more of the same adverse outcome we are already seeing with those tests: "teaching to the test", with all other learning taking a back seat or being abandoned entirely.
There is a similar problem with performance measurement in government. It's difficult to impossible to measure the product per se -- and in my experience no politician in charge of any ministry ever really wants this anyway because it can come back on them -- so they identify certain proxies that are supposed to represent the product. However everyone knows what these proxies are and they massage those specific numbers to fulfil the requirement. Service actually suffers because creating and measuring all these "accountability" widgets takes a lot of time and resources away from the real work.
Suppose that people are doing different work, rather than the same work. Then do you think it's OK if one of the two gets to buy more groceries? (Correct me if I'm wrong, but in many unionized environments, workers with more seniority get to buy more groceries, even if they're doing the same work.)
You're wrong. I explained that in detail above. It only happens in the public service where there are several years of "steps" after hire before you plateau at the job rate. That's a disguised form of cheap labour in many jobs where you are fully qualified in a short time (or are hired fully qualified). But even there, after (say) 5 or 7 years (depending on the number of steps) you make exactly the same salary as someone with 30 years of seniority. In no unionized environment is there such a rule as, "the more senior you are, the more you earn". Seniority determines job preference and layoff protection, not pay.
I don't follow you. I understand there are increment steps for the first x years in public service jobs. But after x years, everyone gets the same salary - to the penny - if they're classified the same, e.g. as CX-5 or whatever. When one CX-5 falls ill for a month, she may be replaced by another CX-5. The first may have 25 years' service, the second 10 years. They are both qualified and interchangeable, and they both get the same salary. One of them may do the job far better than the other (it may in fact be the junior one in this example). But there is no unionized environment I've ever heard of where two individuals, classified the same, are compared in terms of their job performance, and their salaries adjusted accordingly (without changing classification). That's unique to management ranks.
If there's some union somewhere unbeknownst to me, private or public sector, that tolerates such a "divide and rule" regime for unionized employees, then with due respect, they and their members are f***ed.
Oh, and the notion that employees who have more experience are better at a job than those with less experience is also laughable (in any job you care to name). That sounds like a hindsight justification for the increment step system, which, as I pointed out, is merely a cheap-labour methodology. There's nothing individualized about it and it's not based on any science, otherwise you would have seen it in the private sector long ago. It doesn't exist in the private sector.
Okay, here's an example from Ontario. I'll agree not a common example, but a real one.
New person hired as CC-1, there are 10 steps in CC-1, that person (if they start at the bottom of the CC-1 classification) moves up one step every 6 months. There is a performance review which means they could move up 2 steps or not move up any steps, but the overwhelming majority move up one step. Once that person reaches step 10 of CC-1, the next step is to the bottom of CC-3. Once in CC-3 progression through the range is based on merit assessment - most employees receive a 5% increase, some will receive more and some will receive less based on a merit assessment, and based on limitations on the number of employees that are allowed to receive less and the number that are required to receive more. Starting from the bottom of CC-1, it would take 17 years to reach the top of CC-3 at which point the annual increase turns into a merit bonus instead of a merit increase (i.e. most would still get the 5%, but it would be a lump sum payment instead of an increase to annual salary for the next year).
And would it be their fellow unionized employees - the experts in performing the work - who do the "merit assessments" - or managers?
I have never had a problem with step increases. In my experience this doesn't have a divisive effect on union members. No member ever complained about this to me. Personally I did vigorously oppose introducing merit language to the step increases under the public service CA that I used to be a part of -- even though once it was instituted, as a result of our members' ambivalence, it was never used in that workplace, like most other ministries around the OPS as far as I know. Apparently it is used some places, and that I do see as a problem.
Speaking of divide and conquer though, it is perenially disturbing to me to hear our brothers and sisters in the private sector slagging public service bargaining. If it's not one thing they're denigrating us about it's another. It's surprising in a way that I don't hear too much going the other way, eg re private sector unions feeding off consumer capitalism and environmental degradation.
And would it be their fellow unionized employees - the experts in performing the work - who do the "merit assessments" - or managers?
Of course it's the managers, who are experts in performing the work and have many years of experience in the unionized positions, who do the merit assessments as part of the ongoing performance review process.
That's why such systems are unheard of in almost all unionized environments. Even most public service contexts have automatic progression through increment grids based only on time - not some manager's opinion. Exceptions where time actually means approaching measurable certification - such as skilled trades apprenticeships - rely on evaluation by the master journeyperson and other unionized instructors. In the system you describe, the employer (through its managers) controls the pay of every individual, even though they are staffed into the same position. I'm actually rather surprised that such a system exists in the Ontario public service - unless perhaps we're talking about some higher-paid professional or quasi-managerial positions.
Our public workers union accepted a 0%-1%-1% contract a few years ago, and that was after we went on strike for a couple of weeks. This was after the NDP asked that we support them during the election that preceeded the bargaining talks. The Nude Ems probably lost a lot of support by screwing over their natural constituency.
Now we have the Albert, er, "Saskatchewan" party trying to pass "Bill 80." If you clicked on the link, yes, it's as bizarre as it looks, and will set labour back 150 years if it passes.
While I agree ALQ that allowing CLAC into the construction industry is going to be very bad for Sask. workers it not a new idea. in BC we have two construction union systems one with the traditional trade based division of work between unions like the carpenters, labourers, electricians etc. Also we have certifications that are "wall to wall" these belong mostly to rat unions like CLAC but like many things in BC are a legacy of Union Jack.
The IWA in the 70's got certifications for wall to wall "construction" companies that were doing repair work on mills etc when the fire season or snow season restricted employment for the forestry workers. So to protect their members jobs the IWA told the building trades, "FO we do any kind of work we want we own the woods." After the IWA trojan horse the Building trades unions have never been able to oppose wall to wall shops. So we got CLAC and the GWU not just the IWA. It is one of the reasons that in the mid 80's it was so easy to take down the union construction industry. Thanks again Union Jack for your legacy.
Thanks again Union Jack for your legacy.
I think I know what you're talking about, but I have no idea who you're talking about.
Thanks again Union Jack for your legacy.
I think I know what you're talking about, but I have no idea who you're talking about.
..in 2000 i moved into the okanagan for a few years. while working on a mayoral campaign i met a guy that was part of the union delegation that went to kelowna to met with the premier. he told me that munroe went into a room with bennett alone. the rest of the delegation sat outside that room. when munroe came out he said that they had reached a deal. nothing on paper, no witnesses. those on strike went back to work. later bennett denied there was a deal. the momentum towards a general strike was lost.
The Public Sector: Searching for a Focus
By Sam Gindin and Michael Hurley
quote:
First, the labour movement would have a focus – something it is sorely lacking now. Rather than each bargaining unit going through the motions of collective bargaining and further fragmenting workers with the message that there was nothing that could be done (or that it could have been worse), there would be a new basis of potential unity and possibilities. All unions would place the broader demands on the table.
Second, public sector unions would be leading the fight to preserve social services. Rather than letting the government and business isolate public sector workers as a cost that limits funds for public services, we'd be positioned to expose and clarify where the real problems lie. And by moving from progressive rhetoric to committed social action, there would be a basis to build the alliances that are fundamental to effecting change.
Third, the relationship between unions and their members would be changed. For such a perspective to succeed, unions would first have to win their own members over. This means a real emphasis on internal education; the widest discussion with members on tactics and risks; and developing confident organizers to engage the community. The intense mobilization implied by this would, in other words, mean bringing union members into a new kind of class politics and a more substantive union democracy.
Fourth, union structures would have to be transformed. Alongside any commitment to transform the content of union educational and democratic spaces, there would also have to be a reorganization of the technical supports that unions provide. Research and education departments would, for example, have to place relatively greater emphasis on the content of budgets and how expanded demands might be paid for; on the impact of the commercialization of public sector management on not just the level but the quality of services; and on alternative forms of management and delivery more sensitive to community needs.
Fifth, tactical creativity would be encouraged. As important as it is to prepare better policies and plans for the public sector, this will not be enough. There is an overwhelming need for public sector unions to develop new creative workplace tactics. These need to be coordinated so that union and progressive issues are put on the agenda in a way that the governments cannot ignore, while also contributing to building more support for union and socialist positions amongst other working people.
http://www.zcommunications.org/the-public-sector-searching-for-a-focus-b...
The Public Sector: Searching for a Focus
quote:
What Next Steps for Public Sector Unions?
A starting point to get this on the agenda is to begin talking about it in workplaces, locals, unions, at labour councils, and at the OFL and CLC. Public sector unions and leaders need to ask ourselves whether we have a direction that is in fact taking us anywhere and if not, what – given the recent failures in protecting public sector services and workers – new alternatives might be.
Putting our local executives in motion could follow, with an emphasis on using (or reviving) union structures to spread the discussion among the wider membership, develop networks across locals, get this on the agenda of the larger labour movement, reflect on how to more successfully reach the public, and strategize over how to disrupt the goods and services public sector workers produce in a way that advances our collective cause.
These committees would need support. Some of this could be done internally. In other cases, public forums could be held across locals and unions to teach ourselves more about the public sector. This might include workshops on how far the cutbacks have gone elsewhere (so we see what may be coming); on how workers have resisted in other countries (to be inspired and get ideas); on the details of the Ontario and City budgets (so we can analyze and discuss them properly); on larger questions about the potentials and limits of financing public services in a capitalist society......
http://www.zcommunications.org/the-public-sector-searching-for-a-focus-b...
That's a great article by Sam Gindin and Michael Hurley, epaulo13. I think it deserves its own thread, as it goes way beyond the issues raised here already. I'll maybe open one when I've got a bit of time.
..i agree, good article. it's one of the best ideas i've come across in a quite a while that, in a serious manner, both defends and expands our public services. i totally agree with the activation of both the rank and file and the community. i see this as the only way to successfully deal with the financial and environmental crisis we face. mind you i do have one all encompassing solution to all our ills anyway and that is democracy. the economy..democratize it, the government..democratize it. health care..yes democratize it.
As people have pointed out merit pay when applied individually serves to undo the principle of bargaining collectively.
Another approach is to reward the whole unit based on a variety of factors but then you can have safety issues so overall it does not work even when aplied collectively.