Sept. 25, 2003

Adding some ingredients to the Welch Report stew

My guess is that there will always be a need for a structure to classify people and their compensation according to the work they are performing. One of the problems that occur under this system is when people, for whatever reasons, are asked to perform work that is outside the classification to which they are assigned, and they may not be compensated fairly for that work. There is probably no doubt that this happens frequently, and I am sure that many Lab employees can relate to this situation. In an attempt to be a "team player" they take on assignments, which probably should be performed by someone in another classification, and may warrant a higher level of compensation. In some cases, but not often, I have seen that the Lab will recognize this inequity and provide a temporary increase to remedy the situation. However, this does not happen often enough because it requires that the appropriate manager and Human Resources (HR) come to some kind of agreement that the assignment and higher salary, or hourly rate are justified. We have to keep in mind that HR put the whole structure, salary, or hourly rates together based on criteria they derived from "industry standards," therefore they may view any changes as a challenge to the order of things, requiring that they resist these changes.

Another [factor] contributing to the pay inequities problem are the many processes in place which make it very difficult for an individual to move between job classifications, regardless of qualifications, or work being performed. In order to move between classifications it is often necessary for an individual's manager to go before a board and provide justification for the change. This requires that the manager "have what it takes" to put together a justification acceptable to the board. I believe this often leads to a situation where the justification process develops into a contest between the manager's ability to justify the reclassification, and the board's perceived charter of proving why the reclassification is not justified. The loser in this contest will likely be the employee who is under consideration for the reclassification.

There also is a mentality in some areas that an individual must "pay their dues" before advancing into positions long held by others who "have paid their dues," thus contributing to advancements and pay inequities in some cases.

There are many factors to be considered in researching and addressing the pay inequities problem that may not be covered in the Welch report. It's going to be interesting to see the follow-up reports.

--Jim Haynes