IOWA STATE UNIVERSITY
OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
Professional & Scientific Council
Compensation and Benefits Committee
Subcommittee Report
Submitted to C&B Committee for comment: April 10, 2003
Submitted to C&B Committee for approval: April 17, 2003
Submitted to P&S Council: April 22, 2003
Review of the Overlap in Salary and Benefits between the
P&S and Merit Employee Groups at Iowa State University
Prepared by:
Teresa L. Peterson
P&S Council Academic/Research Representative
Lynne Mumm
P&S Council Academic/Research Representative
1
Executive Summary
This subcommittee report proposes policy changes to address the fact that, in many
cases, P&S employees receive lower compensation for their contributions to ISU than
comparable Merit employee groups despite higher levels of responsibility. The specific
recommendation is a thorough review, with accompanying statistical data, to determine the:
∑ Number of P&S employees supervising Merit employees who earn higher annual
salaries
∑ Number of Merit employees receiving higher average annual salaries than P&S
employees in a comparable classification group
∑ Years of service for Merit and P&S employees
Furthermore, we recommend that:
∑ Flexible compensation programs of the Peer Institutions be investigated and considered
as a means to expedite correcting low compensation received by exemplary employees
∑ Greater latitude be given to Directors, Department Chairs, and Deans to enable them to
recognize exemplary employees during the annual budget process
∑ Aggregate salary increases be reported by grade and classification in the FY05 HRS
Annual Report on Professional and Scientific Salaries, and in subsequent reports
Table of Contents
Introduction ................................................................................................................3
Purpose ......................................................................................................................4
Discussion..................................................................................................................4
Summary ....................................................................................................................6
Recommendations .....................................................................................................6
Conclusion .................................................................................................................7
Acknowledgments......................................................................................................7
Bibliography ...............................................................................................................7
Appendix A. Wage Compression/Overlap between ISU Merit and P&S...................8
Appendix B. Information on Programs Existing at Peer Institutions .......................9
2
Introduction
The Professional & Scientific Council recently completed a thorough review of the
Annual Report on Professional & Scientific salaries. The result of this review is published in a
lengthy report prepared by a subcommittee of the Professional & Scientific Council’s
Compensation and Benefits Committee. This report complements that review by addressing
the topic of overlap in salaries between the P&S and Merit employee groups.
Iowa State University’s 2000-2005 Strategic Plan details three basic platform elements
that will help ISU achieve its goals. One of the goals is “Commitment to attracting and retaining
world-class faculty and staff, along with competitive employee compensation and support for
success.”1 The first goal of the Strategic Plan from the Office of the Vice President of Business
and Finance, in support of Iowa State University’s Strategic Plan, is to “Recruit, develop, and
retain a diverse, quality staff and leadership.”2 As stated in the appendix of the same plan, two
ways this will be accomplished are by 1) developing meaningful employee recognition programs
and 2) providing career progression plans.3
Recruiting and retaining the highest quality faculty and staff can only be accomplished if
the prospective and current employees of Iowa State University (hereafter referred to as “ISU”
or the “University”) receive equitable compensation packages. Professional & Scientific (P&S)
employee classifications require higher levels of education, experience, and responsibility than
employee classifications in the Merit system. However, Merit employees are represented by a
strong labor union and their compensation packages are covered under federal and state labor
laws. As a result of the association with a labor union, Merit employees move through their
classification steps at steady, predetermined rates and in shorter time frames than P&S
employees. Their salary and benefit compensation is not based on performance, but rather the
length of employment.
Specific existing inequities that must be addressed are:
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
∑
P&S employees supervising Merit employees who earn higher annual salaries
Merit employees receiving higher percentage annual raises than P&S employees
Higher average salaries for Merit classifications than P&S classifications within
comparable classification groups
Higher starting salaries for Merit classifications than P&S classifications within
comparable classification groups
More comprehensive benefit compensation packages for Merit employees than P&S
employees in the long term
The inability of Department Chairs to adequately address superior performance or salary
inequities within their departments during the annual salary increase discussions
3
Purpose
The Professional and Scientific Council’s Compensation and Benefits (C&B) Committee
“works to assure a fair and equitable financial reward system for P&S staff. The C&B
Committee's responsibility is to assess the effectiveness of the University's classification and
compensation system. They develop and recommend revisions to the plan as well as provide
counsel to the P&S Council in the University's annual budgeting process pertaining to issues
such as budget requests for salary, salary distribution, adjustments to the pay structure, and
other compensation concerns.”4
The purpose of this report is to provide information to the administration of ISU that
reflects the concerns of P&S employees. The report is not intended to reflect or imply that one
group of employees is more valuable to the University than another. The Professional &
Scientific Council recognizes the value of Merit employees to the University. This report is
intended to bring attention to inequities that have developed over time between the
compensation packages provided to P&S and Merit employees.
Discussion
The Human Resource Services (HRS) office provided the C&B Committee with a report
entitled, “Wage Compression/Overlap between ISU Merit and P&S.” The data collected and
used in this report was tabulated manually because HRS does not have an electronic database
available to gather the type of information contained in the report. According to Carrie Haefner,
Manager Classification and Compensation, the classifications on the report are arranged in
similar groups and comparisons should be made based on the groups.5
HRS data from August 2002 clearly indicates several instances where the average
annual Merit salary is higher than the average annual P&S salary. There are also several Merit
starting salaries that are higher than the starting salaries for P&S employees in a similar
classification group. A detailed summary is presented in Appendix A, “Wage
Compression/Overlap between ISU Merit and P&S.” An example from Appendix A is shown
below.
P&S Title
Grade
Minimum
Average
Merit Title
Grade
Minimum
Average
Systems Support Spec I
12
$27,585
$33,523
411
$29,044
$35,396
Systems Support Spec II
13
$30,128
$38,586
Comp Info Sys Tech I
Comp Info Sys Tech
II
415
$34,640
$43,900
Systems Support Spec III
Analyst/Programmer
Systems Analyst I
14
13
14
$33,236
$30,128
$33,236
$45,720
$37,950
$44,749
$25,453
$27,791
$32,050
$37,333
Data Tech II
508
Data Tech III
510
Starting salary higher for merit
Average salary higher for merit
NOTE: It is important to note that comparisons are made between groups, not individual job titles. According to HRS, the example
above consists of one group of classifications that can be compared to each other. Highlighted salaries reflect a starting or average
salary for a Merit position that is higher than a P&S position in the same group, not necessarily on the same line.
The subcommittee must conclude from the data that there is a high probability that P&S
employees will supervise higher paid Merit employees, and the number of incidences of this will
continue to increase. In fact, P&S Council representatives are receiving an increased number
of calls where this is the case, though no quantified data have been collected.
If the current trend of Merit employees receiving higher annual percentage salary
increases than P&S employees continues without an adjustment to the P&S pay matrix, the
problem will become widespread. The tables below provide a comparison for the annual salary
increases of Merit versus P&S employees for the years of FY1994-FY2003.
4
As seen in Table 1, Midwest Regional Consumer Price Index (CPI) data from the US
Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, indicates that salary ranges for P&S grades
P14 and lower have not kept pace with inflationary pressures. Meanwhile, salary ranges for
higher grades have matched or surpassed inflation.7
A
Table 1, Gross and Inflation Adjusted Changes to P&S Pay Matrix from FY1994 to FY2003
Grade
% Change in
% Change in
CPI Adjusted % Change
Grade Minimum from
Grade Maximum from
in Grade Minimum from
FY94 to FY03
FY94 to FY03
FY94 to FY03
P11
21%
21%
-3.0%
P12
21%
21%
-2.9%
P13
22%
23%
-1.8%
P14
23%
24%
-0.7%
P15
25%
26%
0.5%
P16
27%
29%
2.9%
P17
28%
30%
4.1%
P18
30%
33%
6.4%
P19
33%
36%
8.8%
P20
36%
N/A
12.4%
Average:
27%
27%
2.7%
Midwest CPI for FY 1994
141.8
Midwest CPI for FY 2003 (to date)
175.9
Percent Change
24.0%
A
CPI Data from US Dept. of Labor Bureau of Labor Statistics (www.bls.gov)
CPI Adjusted % Change
in Grade Maximum from
FY94 to FY03
-3.2%
-2.8%
-1.2%
0.3%
1.9%
4.7%
6.2%
9.0%
11.7%
N/A
3.0%
Much of the disparity in growth within the P&S pay matrix is due to non-uniform changes made
in FY1999, where the lowest grade(s) moved 2% and the top grade(s) moved 15%. Still, P&S
Pay Matrix growth for the 1995, 1996, 1997, 2000 and 2001 fiscal years lagged behind inflation,
with respect to grade minimums. Grade maximum followed suit with the exception of FY2000.
In contrast, as seen in Table 2, over the same period Merit grade endpoints have out-paced
inflationary pressures an average of 15 and 20 percent, respectively. Only P&S pay grades P19
and P20 have shown double-digit growth over the same time frame.
B
Table 2, Gross and Inflation Adjusted Changes to the Merit Pay Schedule from FY1994 to FY2003
Grade
% Change in Grade
% Change in
CPI Adjusted % Change
CPI Adjusted % Change
Minimum
Grade Maximum from
in Grade Minimum from
in Grade Maximum from
FY94 to FY03
FY94 to FY03
FY94 to FY03
FY94 to FY03
1
35%
43%
11%
19%
2
35%
43%
10%
19%
3
52%
58%
28%
34%
4
49%
55%
25%
31%
5
45%
51%
21%
26%
6
44%
47%
20%
23%
7
40%
43%
16%
19%
8
40%
42%
15%
18%
9
36%
42%
12%
18%
10
36%
43%
12%
19%
11
36%
42%
12%
18%
12
36%
41%
11%
17%
13
35%
41%
11%
16%
14
35%
42%
10%
18%
15
37%
42%
13%
18%
16
38%
41%
14%
17%
17
37%
40%
13%
16%
18
37%
39%
13%
15%
Average:
39%
44%
15%
20%
B
Comparison based on Non-organized Merit Pay Matrix for the FY1994 and FY2003 Regent Merit System Pay Plan.
5
The resultant compression can be illustrated another way. In FY1994, the maximum
possible Merit salary was equivalent to a P15 at 51 percent of the grade maximum. For FY2003
the maximum possible Merit salary is equivalent to a P15 at 72 percent of the grade maximum.
In a similar fashion, in FY1994 a P11 at grade minimum was equivalent to a Merit grade 8 at
43% of the grade. Today a P11 is equivalent to a Merit grade 8 at 3.1%.
The salary overlap issue is further complicated by the increased cost of health insurance
benefits borne by P&S employees. As a result, P&S employees’ realize salaries that are
reduced by the increased cost of their health insurance. In contrast, Merit employees will have
an even greater portion of their health insurance coverage paid by ISU in the next fiscal year.
The terms of the new Merit contract include:
1. 2% pay increase on July 1 plus a 4.5% increase on the anniversary of hiring
2. Effective 1/1/04, increase in the state’s contribution to family insurance plans
from 80% to 82%, and mail order prescription drugs and domestic partner
coverage (which is already available to P&S employees)
3. Effective 1/1/05, another 2% pay increase, an increase family medical
insurance plan coverage to 85%, and expanded dental coverage6
Another factor that is difficult to quantify is the issue of overtime. The subcommittee
recognizes that the information provided in Table 2 and Appendix A does not include overtime
and/or compensation time paid annually to Merit employees. With increased responsibility,
workload increases; if salary increases are not commensurate with the increase in
workload/responsibilities, the net effect is a wage decrease.
All of the factors discussed above contribute to a demoralizing work environment for the
P&S employees of ISU. It is difficult to determine how widespread the problems identified by
the subcommittee are, because HRS lacks good statistical data. It is imperative that the
administration recognize that a serious problem exists and that steps should be taken to
determine the depth and breadth of the problem. The subcommittee believes this should be
done within the next three years in conjunction with the recommended reviews of the P&S
classification systems: Motion 2002-03.08, “Concurrence with C&B Committee Subcommittee
Report & Implementation Schedule,” and motion 2002-03.09, “Concurrence with C&B
Committee Subcommittee Report’s Policy Recommendations.”
The subcommittee investigated possible solutions to the problem by reviewing
compensation practices for each of Iowa State University’s ten peer land-grant universities.
Summaries of the flexible compensation programs available at the peer institutions appear in
Appendix B. The information contained in Appendix B was taken from the human resource
website of each university. The University of Illinois and Purdue University are not represented
in the information because the subcommittee was unable to find similar programs on their
websites.
Recommendations
This subcommittee proposes policy changes to address the fact that, in many cases,
P&S employees receive lower compensation for their contributions to ISU than comparable
Merit employee groups despite higher levels of responsibility. The specific recommendation is a
thorough review, with accompanying statistical data, to determine the:
∑ Number of P&S employees supervising Merit employees who earn higher annual
salaries
6
∑
Number of Merit employees receiving higher average annual salaries than P&S
employees in a comparable classification group
∑ Years of service for Merit and P&S employees
Furthermore, we recommend that:
∑ Flexible compensation programs of the Peer Institutions be investigated and considered
as a means to expedite correcting low compensation received by exemplary employees
∑ Greater latitude be given to Directors, Department Chairs, and Deans to enable them to
recognize exemplary employees during the annual budget process
∑ Aggregate salary increases be reported by grade and classification in the FY05 HRS
Annual Report on Professional and Scientific Salaries, and in subsequent reports
Conclusion
Professional and Scientific employees are an essential ingredient in Iowa State’s vision
to become the best, but because this group is without the additional protection of a strong labor
union (as Merit employees have) or a formal tenure policy (as is the case with faculty), issues
related to pay equity are easily lost in difficult budget years. P&S employees must receive
comparable recognition for their contributions to the success of the University. The problems of
wage compression and overlap between the classification systems at ISU must be recognized,
reviewed, and corrected to maintain a world-class staff.
Acknowledgements
The subcommittee would like to acknowledge the helpful contributions by Carrie Haefner
and Rita Hardaway, who provided the Wage Compression Reports used as the basis for this
report. We also wish to acknowledge those on the P&S Executive and Compensation and
Benefits Committees who provided helpful comments and proof reading.
Bibliography
This document and all bibliographic references, where possible, will be submitted to the
P&S Council Records in the ISU Parks Library University Collections and Archives.
(1) The Strategic Plan for 2002-2005, University-wide Strategies to Achieve Goals, pg.
12.
(2) Vice President for Business and Finance Strategic Plan for 2002-2005, Superior
Support and Service: Working as a team to help people succeed at Iowa State
University, pg. 4.
(3) Vice President for Business and Finance Strategic Plan for 2002-2005, Superior
Support and Service: Working as a team to help people succeed at Iowa State
University, Appendix: pg. 13.
(4) P&S Council website, P&S Compensation and Benefits Committee,
http://www.public.iastate.edu/~ps_info/CandBCommittee.html.
(5) Carrie Haefner, Iowa State University Human Resource Services, Personal
Communication, January 29, 2003.
(6) Inside Iowa State, March 6 issue.
(7) “Recommendations for the FY04 P&S Pay Matrix”, approved by P&S Council April 2,
2003.
7
Appendix A.
Pay
Grade
Employee
Count
Average
Salary
**P&S
Minimum of
Pay Grade
FY 03
**P&S
First Third of
Pay Grade
FY 03
**P&S
Midpoint of
Pay Grade
FY 03
Pay
Grade
Employee
Count
*Average
Salary
**Merit
Minimum of
Pay Grade
FY 03
**Merit
Maximum of
Pay Grade
through 1/31/03
**Merit
Maximum of
Pay Grade
as of 2/1/03
Accountant I
Accountant II
Accountant III
Accountant IV
11
13
14
15
2
12
14
4
$31,823
$36,978
$39,603
$49,383
$25,791
$30,128
$33,236
$37,059
$30,909
$36,725
$40,859
$45,940
$41,144
$40,024
$44,671
$50,381
Account Clerk
Account Specialist
509
513
34
15
$35,176
$42,523
$26,601
$31,717
$35,976
$43,075
$37,835
$45,101
Admin. Spec. I
Admin. Spec. II
Program Asst I
Program Asst II
Program Coordinator I
HR Specialist II
HR Specialist III
12
13
11
13
14
13
14
49
31
36
66
77
3
2
$37,876
$41,611
$29,132
$35,358
$40,608
$37,148
$40,339
$27,585
$30,128
$25,791
$30,128
$33,236
$30,128
$33,236
$33,344
$36,725
$30,909
$36,725
$40,859
$36,725
$40,859
$36,224
$40,024
$41,144
$40,024
$44,671
$40,024
$44,671
Secretary II
Secretary III
Secretary IV
Clerk III
Clerk IV
Office Coordinator I
Office Coordinator II
508
511
112
508
111
111
112
292
99
14
126
58
32
1
$31,852
$37,625
$39,299
$31,683
$37,034
$37,942
$41,050
$25,453
$29,044
$30,360
$25,453
$29,044
$29,044
$30,360
$34,327
$39,087
$41,050
$34,327
$39,087
$39,087
$41,050
$36,206
$41,301
$43,159
$36,206
$41,301
$41,301
$43,159
Research Associate I
Research Associate II
Asst. Scientist I
11
13
13
71
58
21
$29,754
$34,722
$35,775
$25,791
$30,128
$30,128
$30,909
$36,725
$36,725
$41,144
$40,024
$40,024
Lab Tech II
Lab Tech III
408
410
10
17
$30,919
$34,972
$25,453
$27,791
$33,262
$36,122
$36,206
$39,526
Ag Specialist I
Ag Specialist II
Ag Specialist III
12
13
14
5
8
11
$33,533
$34,402
$42,324
$27,585
$30,128
$33,236
$33,344
$36,725
$40,859
$36,224
$40,024
$44,671
Field Lab Tech II
Field Lab Tech III
Animal Caretaker II
Animal Caretaker III
Seed Analyst II
Seed Analyst III
408
411
208
110
408
412
8
9
33
6
3
2
$31,988
$37,291
$30,331
$37,141
$33,262
$39,672
$25,453
$29,044
$25,453
$27,791
$25,453
$30,360
$33,262
$37,855
$32,280
$37,333
$33,262
$39,672
$36,206
$41,301
$36,206
$39,526
$36,206
$43,159
Enrollment Serv Adv I
Enrollment Serv Adv II
Enrollment Serv Adv III
Academic Advisor I
Academic Advisor II
Academic Advisor III
11
13
15
11
13
14
4
10
4
3
28
14
$27,117
$33,945
$44,375
$32,879
$34,475
$41,810
$25,791
$30,128
$37,059
$25,791
$30,128
$33,236
$30,909
$36,725
$45,940
$30,909
$36,725
$40,859
$41,144
$40,024
$50,381
$41,144
$40,024
$44,671
Record Analyst I
Record Analyst II
510
512
13
17
$36,284
$41,050
$27,791
$30,360
$37,333
$41,050
$39,526
$43,159
Systems Support Spec I
Systems Support Spec II
Systems Support Spec III
Analyst/Programmer
Systems Analyst I
12
13
14
13
14
7
31
28
3
39
$33,523
$38,586
$45,720
$37,950
$44,749
$27,585
$30,128
$33,236
$30,128
$33,236
$33,344
$36,725
$40,859
$36,725
$40,859
$36,224
$40,024
$44,671
$40,024
$44,671
Comp Info Sys Tech I
Comp Info Sys Tech II
Data Tech II
Data Tech III
411
415
508
510
8
6
3
2
$35,396
$43,900
$32,050
$37,333
$29,044
$34,640
$25,453
$27,791
$37,855
$45,017
$34,327
$37,333
$41,301
$49,256
$36,206
$39,526
Engineer I
Engineer II
13
14
1
4
$39,910
$45,753
$30,128
$33,236
$36,725
$40,859
$40,024
$44,671
Engineer Tech I
Engineer Tech II
413
415
4
6
$39,510
$42,055
$31,717
$34,640
$41,635
$45,017
$45,101
$49,256
Editor II
13
3
$45,753
$30,128
$36,725
$40,024
Editorial Asst II
508
1
$34,326
$25,453
$34,327
$36,206
Graphic Designer I
Graphic Designer II
Graphic Designer III
12
13
14
5
6
4
$32,332
$36,117
$43,314
$27,585
$30,128
$33,236
$33,344
$36,725
$40,859
$36,224
$40,024
$44,671
Graphics Specialist I
410
2
$36,122
$27,791
$36,122
$39,526
Extension Program Spec I
Extension Program Spec II
11
13
4
24
$26,875
$35,015
$25,791
$30,128
$30,909
$36,725
$41,144
$40,024
Extension Program Asst II
Extension Program Asst III
506
507
49
2
$27,788
$29,481
$23,302
$24,367
$30,652
$32,698
$33,157
$34,640
Library Associate I
13
7
$41,528
$30,128
$36,725
$40,024
Library Assistant II
Library Assistant III
Library Assistant IV
508
510
112
19
30
25
$30,588
$35,662
$39,809
$25,453
$27,791
$30,360
$34,327
$37,333
$41,050
$36,206
$39,526
$43,159
P&S Classification
Merit Classification
*2001/2002 Pay Matrix
Starting salary higher for Merit
Average salary higher for Merit
Average salary higher than midpoint
NOTE: It is important to note that comparisons in this appendix are made between groups of
classifications, not individual job titles. According to HRS, this table is comprised of several groups of
classifications that can be compared to one another. Highlighted salaries reflect a starting or average
salary for a Merit position that is higher than a P&S position in the same group, not on the same line.
8
Appendix B.
Information on Flexible Compensation Programs Existing at Peer Institutions
The University of Arizona
http://www.hr.arizona.edu/09_rel/policies/pp318.php
In-Classification Career Progression Policy
The University endeavors through its operating units to recognize the career progression and
development of regular classified staff who by virtue of their motivation, initiative, abilities and
excellence in performance are regularly assigned and held accountable for the most complex
and significant projects, assignments and responsibilities of their classification.
Requests for in-classification career progression shall be reviewed and initiated by the Dean,
Director, Department Head or designee in consultation with the Human Resources Advisor
serving the designated area.
Implementation of the in-classification career progression request shall be based on all of the
following criteria being met:
∑ The more complex and significant projects, assignments and responsibilities of the job
classification are assigned on a regular basis to the employee;
∑ The employee has demonstrated the attainment of a significantly higher level of
knowledge and skills which are specific to the job classification and functional area;
∑ The employee's most recent performance appraisal, (within the last twelve months), and
within the current job classification, reflects job requirements being exceeded or better;
∑ Confirmation that funds have been identified and authorized by the appropriate
administrator to support the salary increase;
∑ The amount of the proposed increase should be justified and equitable when compared
to other positions in the department;
∑ Twelve or more months have elapsed since the employee's last career progression.
An administrator may request that a regular classified staff employee who meets all of the
defined criteria above be granted an in-classification career progression salary increase subject
to the following standards:
∑ an amount that will increase the employee's rate of pay up to the midpoint of the salary
range, or
∑ an amount no greater than 10% of the employee's current salary, not to exceed the
range maximum.
The Executive Director for Human Resources or designee may approve a salary in exception to
these standards if the responsible administrator submits a written request which specifies the
reason(s) and appropriate justification for an exception.
9
University of California, Davis
http://www.hr.ucdavis.edu/Comp_Ben/Compensation
27) What is an equity adjustment?
Equity adjustments are salary changes outside of the normal salary programs (promotions,
reclassifications, merits, etc.) to remedy salary issues such as external pressure in high demand
areas, internal salary compression, and/or retention considerations. Equity adjustments are not
granted to reward performance. For specific information on use of equities please consult the
appropriate policy/Labor contract.
Equity Reviews:
Equity Increases: An increase in salary (separate from the Merit process) to remedy a salary
inequity within an organization.
Michigan State University
http://www.hr.msu.edu/Depts/comp/rewards/formal_rewards.htm
Formal Rewards
In addition to the annual contractual pay increases, Michigan State University has three formal,
or monetary reward programs for support staff:
∑ Special Base Pay Merit Increase
∑ Special Lump Sum Merit Increase
∑ Unit Recognition Program
Special Base Pay Merit Increase
To reward exceptional performance, unit administrators have the option of awarding
special merit increases that are added to an employee’s base pay. This reward strategy
is available to CTU, APSA, APA, and non-union employee groups. These special
increases should generally be awarded no more than once per year per employee.
To implement this type of merit increase, the unit administrator should note the
percentage increase on the employee’s PAN form and send it to Human Resources. For
increases over 5% of the employee’s salary, the unit administrator should attach a letter
explaining the exceptional performance.
Special Lump Sum Merit Increase
This reward strategy serves as a cost-effective vehicle for recognizing exceptional
contributions of members of the CTU, APSA, APA and non-union employee groups.
Because this type of merit increase is awarded as a one-time lump sum bonus, recurring
funds are not required. Lump sum increases should generally be awarded no more than
once per year per employee.
To implement this type of merit increase, the unit administrator should complete a
Special Payment Authorization form and send it to Human Resources. For lump sum
increases over 5% of the employee’s salary, the unit administrator should attach a letter
explaining the exceptional performance.
Unit Recognition Program
Units may establish formal recognition programs to honor extraordinary achievements by
individuals or teams in all support staff employee groups. Unit recognition programs are
to have defined criteria for the type of achievement (i.e. quality or productivity
10
improvements or exceptional financial results), award type and amount, eligibility
requirements and recipient selection process. The MAU head should approve them.
Because this type of recognition program should reward superior performance and/or
exceptional achievement, the frequency and number of awards given per year should be
limited. Cash recognition awards should not exceed $1500. Non-cash awards such as
plaques, certificates, meals, tickets, or small gifts are not to exceed $75 in value per
recipient per year. All cash awards, including gift certificates or other cash equivalents
are subject to income tax.
To implement a cash payment of a unit recognition award, the unit administrator should
submit a summary of the approved recognition program, an explanation of the
employee’s achievements, and a Special Payment Authorization form to Human
Resources.
11
The University of Minnesota
http://www1.umn.edu/ohr/ohrpolicy/Compensation/range.htm
In-Range Salary Adjustments-Policy Statement
The University allows responsible administrators within this policy to have the option of giving inrange salary adjustments to non-union, non-academic personnel. Reasons for such increases in
salary are limited to the categories of market, merit, retention, internal equity and workload
adjustments. This type of salary adjustment is to be used with discretion. Decisions to make this
adjustment should be made only after consideration of the impact to all positions within a
department or larger unit. In-range salary adjustments are to be made in full compliance with the
criteria provided.
Reason for Policy- To provide for increases to an individual’s salary within the existing
classification’s salary range. Such increases are distinct from those which result from annual
pay plans.
In-range salary adjustments under this policy may be used for non-union, non-academic staff.
Adjustments should be applied judiciously and in full compliance with the outlined criteria and
procedures.
Types and Criteria for In-range Adjustments
An in-range salary adjustment is a recurring change of a non-union, non-academic employee’s
salary rate within the salary range of the particular classification (job code). Regent’s policy
prohibits the payment of a salary outside of this established range. The types of adjustments
and criteria are briefly summarized as follows:
Market Adjustments
∑ An in-range adjustment may be provided where an incumbent’s placement within the
salary range is not consistent with relevant market data. The appropriate responsible
administrator may initiate temporary augmentation of the affected employee’s salary, if
the perceived market problem is such that a unit is in danger of losing employees within
a classification (job code) before the Office of Human Resources completes a market
analysis and a final decision is made on the amount and continuation of any increases.
Merit Adjustments
∑ A merit adjustment may be awarded if the responsible administrator determines that an
employee’s performance is especially meritorious. The performance appraisal must
document an exceptional level of performance.
Retention Adjustments
∑ A retention adjustment may be awarded to counter a bona fide employment offer from
an outside organization.
Internal Equity Adjustments
∑ Colleges/departments/units are responsible for establishing and maintaining equitable
pay relationships within their work units. Factors to consider in determining equitable pay
relationships are: employee credentials, employee salary history at the University, and
documented employee work performance.
∑ Internal equity increases may be recommended whenever an equity problem is
discovered.
Every college and unit must have consistent hiring and promotion practices. It is expected that
colleges/departments/units making salary offers to new employees will evaluate the new
12
employee’s overall credentials against the salary, credentials, and performance record of
existing staff in order to preserve internal equity within the work unit.
In the rare event that a unit hires a similarly qualified new employee at a pay rate greater than
that of similarly qualified incumbents in the same classification, the responsible administrator
may recommend an in-range salary increase to bring incumbents pay into an equitable
relationship. The responsible administrator will review the documented work performance as
well as credentials of current employees in making pay decisions.
Workload Adjustments
∑ Due to the elimination of positions and/or greater need to increase the unit’s
effectiveness and efficiency, it is sometimes necessary to increase an employee’s
workload. The assignment of higher level responsibilities may result in reclassification to
a higher classification (job code) for the incumbent. Often the additional or new duties do
not rise to the level which would justify a change in classification. Where there are
extreme and documented increases in the workload, the responsible administrator may
recommend an in-range adjustment to recognize the additional effort.
13
North Carolina State University
http://www2.acs.ncsu.edu/hr/InIn-range Salary Adjustment Program
In-range salary adjustments are awarded based on the criteria of job change, salary
inequity, and/or labor market indications. In-range salary adjustments can be awarded
for a maximum salary increase of 10% annually. The actual percentage of the increase
depends on such factors as salary equity considerations within the department; the
employee's applicable education and experience; and the amount of funds the
department has available to award as a salary increase.
In-range salary adjustments, with regard to job change, are made on the basis of
moderate or significant changes which include higher level duties or additional duties at
the same level which increase the variety and scope or complexity of responsibilities
assigned to the employee.
Salary equity adjustments are appropriate in order to establish equitable salary
relationships among employees having similar education and/or work experience
performing the same type and level of work in related work units.
The award of in-range salary adjustments may also be warranted in certain classifications due
to the labor market conditions which:
∑ require specific and highly technical skills;
∑ offer a more competitive salary for specific skills;
∑ or indicate a critical labor market shortage for certain positions.
What determines the difference between an in-range salary adjustment based on job change
and a reclassification request?
Both begin with a request from a supervisor to review changes in a job. When the majority of the
tasks are recognized at a higher level, the position is reclassified. If a reclassification is not
supported, the request will be evaluated to determine if an in-range salary adjustment may be
awarded to recognize the changes in the job.
14
Ohio State University
http://hr.osu.edu/policy/policy315.pdf
Reward and Recognition Policy 3.15
Applies to: Faculty and staff
The University encourages the recognition of excellent performance and achievement through
the use of rewards that are creative, flexible, and meaningful. When administered and
communicated effectively, reward and recognition are an important part of a total compensation
program. Units may choose whether or not to develop Defined Reward Programs. In the
absence of a Defined Reward Program, units may give rewards in immediate response to
specific accomplishments.
POLICY GUIDELINES
I. Definitions
Reward - a one-time cash or non-cash award for significant outstanding performance.
Defined Reward Program - a documented reward program developed, communicated, and
implemented in consultation with the Office of Human Resources (OHR) and/or Office of
Academic Affairs (OAA) for a particular unit. Defined Reward Programs consist of rewards that
range from spontaneous to those that are more formal in nature.
II. Guiding Principles
A. Rewards should be given for significant outstanding performance that advances unit goals,
and should be tied to a specific accomplishment.
B. Rewards are most effective when they are meaningful to the individual.
C. Care should be taken in communication and distribution of rewards so that they are not
viewed as entitlements.
D. Rewards may be designed to reflect the unique nature of the unit's work culture and
organizational structure.
E. Rewards should not be substituted for a competitive salary plan. For example, rewards
should not be used as a long-term alternative to permanent salary adjustments when these
adjustments are appropriate for consistently high performance, significant changes in
responsibility, increased value of a position, or internal pay equity.
F. Rewards are not adjustments to base salary, supplemental compensation, or variable pay
programs (such as commission).
G. Rewards should not be used as a substitute for supplies, support services, or training.
III. Reward Guidelines
A. The following chart summarizes reward value parameters. These values apply to cash
awards, as well as to non-cash rewards with monetary value (such as event tickets and gift
certificates). Requests for exceptions to these guidelines by department chairs or managers
should be submitted to the individual's dean or vice president. Exception requests by vice
presidents or deans should be submitted to the Office of Human Resources, Consulting
Services.
B. These guidelines do not apply to customary work-related expenses such as travel,
conference attendance, and memberships in professional organizations.
C. Through the process of consultation and approval of Defined Reward Programs, parameters
may be modified to meet individual college or unit needs.
D. Units must consult with the Office of Human Resources, Consulting Services, and/or the
Office of Academic Affairs when cash distributions to an entire unit are being considered. OHR
and/or OAA must approve such distributions prior to implementation.
15
Reward Value
Approval Needed
No monetary value
(such as letters of
commendation)
Up to $100 (non-cash)
none
Up to $100 (cash
Chair or manager
$101 to $1000 (cash
and non-cash)
Over $1000 (cash and
non-cash)
dean or vice president
Chair or manager
Dean or vice president and
OHR
16
Frequency
Per
Person/Team
As often as
appropriate
Taxable?
One time per
fiscal year
One time per
fiscal year
One time per
fiscal year
One time per
fiscal year
see De Minimis
fringe Benefits
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
TEXAS A&M
http://hr.tamu.edu/classification/flex_comp.html
Flexible Compensation Programs
Texas A&M University provides supervisors and managers with monetary and non-monetary
compensation tools to recognize and reward outstanding performance (University Rule
31.01.01.M5 Flexible Compensation Programs).
"Outstanding performance" is defined as an overall annual performance appraisal rating of
"exceeds expectations" or higher.
Implementation of these programs within each division of the University is at the discretion of
the respective vice president and are not considered to be entitlements.
Supervisors and managers should deliver rewards as close as possible to the qualifying event.
When delivering rewards, be specific as to what was done well and let the employee know how
the organization benefited from the performance.
MONETARY REWARDS
One-time Merit Payments
∑ One-time Merit Payments are monetary rewards up to $1,000 (gross) to recognize
outstanding performance that consistently exceeds expected or required productivity or
exceptional contributions by employees performing special projects of significant
importance. Wage and probationary employees are not eligible to receive a One-time
Merit Payment.
∑
One-time Merit Payments are awarded no more than once per year per employee, due
to the requirement that an employee must not have received a merit salary increase
within the past six months prior to the effective date of the One-time Merit Payment.
Employees must also be employed by the University for at least six continuous months
immediately preceding the effective date of the payment.
∑
One-time Merit Payments require approval from a Vice President or designee. This type
of merit increase is not added to the employee's base pay.
Job-Related Skill Enhancement Pay
∑ Job-related Skill Enhancement Pay may be given to staff employees who take the
initiative through their own efforts to complete a prescribed course of study that is
directly related to the position held. A master list of approved certifications and
prescribed programs of study will include qualifying credentials for each division. The
employee must present evidence of mastery such as a degree, certificate, or license for
consideration. The employee must have an overall performance appraisal rating of
"exceeds expectations" or higher and must not be currently subject to formal disciplinary
action.
∑
Qualifying credentials for the Job-related Skill Enhancement Pay Program must be
conferred on or after September 1, 2001. Employees may receive only one award per
qualifying event.
17
∑
Vice Presidents or their designees are authorized to approve Job-related Skill
Enhancement Pay increases up to 10 percent above the employee's current salary. This
increase is added to the employee's base pay.
Hiring Salary Adjustments
∑ Hiring salary adjustments may be given to newly hired or promoted classified and nonclassified employees who have specific skills and experience above the minimum
qualifications for the position.
∑
A newly hired or promoted employee must complete six months of service to be
considered for a hiring salary adjustment. The adjustment can only be given within the
three months immediately following six months service.
∑
Department Heads may approve requests for hiring salary adjustments up to10% above
the employee's current rate of pay. Any proposed hiring salary adjustment exceeding
this amount requires approval by the appropriate vice president. Hiring salary
adjustments are added to the employee's base pay.
Shift Differential Pay
∑ Shift Differential Pay may be given to non-exempt University employees [excluding
student workers and wage employees] who are required to work scheduled hours
outside of the usual University workday. The usual University workday is defined as 8:00
a.m. to 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, with one hour off for lunch. There are some
departments or units who due to the nature of their business have functions that
preclude the usual workday schedule. In these cases, shift differential pay would be
based on scheduled hours outside the approved alternate workday.
∑
Any employee receiving shift differential will be paid a uniform pay rate of $00.50 (fifty
cents) per hour. This rate shall be paid in addition to the employee's regular hourly rate.
∑
Shift Differential Pay may be given only upon the approval of the appropriate vice
president of each respective division. Changes to the rate for shift differential pay shall
be recommended in writing by the Human Resources Department, through the Vice
President for Administration, to the President for approval.
NON-MONETARY REWARDS
Administrative Leave With Pay
Flexible Work Schedules
Employee Recognition and Rewards
18
University of Wisconsin
http://der.state.wi.us/static/pdf/SectionAfor0103.pdf
A-8
2.05 Progression Adjustment for Certain Nonrepresented Classifications
(1) Eligibility. All permanent and project employees in positions allocated to
classifications specified in (2) below, will be eligible for a base-building progression adjustment,
except as follows:
(a) An employee whose base pay rate is equal to or greater than the appropriate
threshold stated in (2) below.
(b) An employee who has received an unsatisfactory performance evaluation prior to the
granting date. The denial of a progression adjustment based upon unsatisfactory
performance is not grievable under s. 230.12(5)(c), Wis. Stats. Employees must be
notified of the unsatisfactory performance in writing, and will receive a new performance
evaluation prior to the next scheduled progression adjustment date. The written
notification will include:
1) Details of each occurrence of unsatisfactory performance; and
2) Identification of goals and expectations stated in terms that are
measurable and which specify how expectations are to be
accomplished.
(c) An employee who has already received two (2) progression adjustments in any
position(s) under 2.05 of this Section (Section A).
(2) Amount
(a) An eligible employee in a position allocated to one of the following
classifications will receive a progression adjustment of $1.20 per hour on the granting
date, subject to the pay range 81-03 minimum.
1) Accountant-Confidential
2) Equal Opportunity Program Specialist
3) Executive Equal Opportunity Specialist
4) Executive Human Resources Specialist
5) Human Resources Specialist
6) IS Support Technician-Confidential
7) IS Professional-Confidential
(b) An eligible employee in a position allocated to one of the following
classifications will receive a one-time progression adjustment of $1.20 per
hour on the granting date, subject to the pay range 81-03 minimum.
1) Budget and Policy Analyst-Agency
2) Budget and Policy Analyst-Division
3) Employee Benefit Plan Policy Advisor-Entry
4) Ethics Specialist
5) Institution Human Resources Director
6) UW Human Resources Manager
(c) An eligible employee in a position allocated to Payroll and Benefit SpecialistConfidential will receive a progression adjustment of $1.00 per hour on the granting
date, subject to the pay range 81-04 minimum.
(d) An eligible employee in a position allocated to Executive Budget & Finance Program
Specialist will receive a one-time progression adjustment of $1.00 per hour on the
granting date, subject to the pay range 81-04 minimum.
19
(e) The individual increase limit provided in s. 230.12(5)(d), Wis. Stats., does not apply
to progression adjustments granted pursuant to provisions of 2.05 of this Section
(Section A).
(f) An employee may not, for any reason, receive more than two (2)
progression adjustments under 2.05 of this Section (Section A).
(3) Granting Date.
(a) Progression adjustments for eligible employees will be awarded based on the
employee’s State service seniority date. Seniority dates will be adjusted (for progression
adjustment purposes only) for absence from employment of more than one hundred and
seventy four (174) work hours during the period between seniority dates, approved
leaves of absence, layoff, and resignation. Adjustment of seniority for the
aforementioned reasons may be waived at the discretion of the appointing authority.
(b) Progression adjustments will be effective on the first day of the pay period following
the employee’s seniority date. If the employee’s seniority date occurs on the first day of
a pay period, the progression adjustment will be effective on that date.
(c) An employee who is ineligible for the progression adjustment due to
unsatisfactory performance will not be eligible to receive it until the next
seniority date anniversary (i.e., one year). An employee will not be allowed
to receive more than one progression adjustment on a granting date due to such a
delay.
20