TABLE OF CONTENTS |
FRONT PAGE
| NEXT ARTICLE |
PREVIOUS ARTICLE |
UNC HOMEPAGE
Arne Kalleberg described it as a "blank sheet of paper."
"And we want to fill that paper up," the Carolina professor of sociology told employees gathered Oct. 18 at a community meeting held to get their feedback on what they would like to see in a University-designed personnel system.
Employees had plenty of ideas for filling in the blanks, with notions ranging from evening out the rate at which vacation days are earned to scrapping the current position-classification structure and starting over with a new one.
They voiced their ideas to Kalleberg and Wanda Smith, an administrator in microbiology and immunology, who led the meeting as members of the Input Subcommittee of the campus Personnel Flexibility Committee, a panel charged with finding out what kind of personnel system would best serve Carolina's needs.
As its name suggests, the Input Committee's task is to solicit feedback from the entire campus through surveys, focus groups and community meetings, of which the Oct. 18 gathering was one of several held this month.
A facilities employee asked if workers here would remain state employees under a new personnel system, and the answer was yes, said Ken Litowsky, an Office of Human Resources administrator serving on the Personnel Flexibility Committee.
The difference would be that the campus would be exempt from the State Personnel Act (SPA), which sets salary grades and position classifications for the employees subject to it, who are known as "SPA" employees.
By being freed from the SPA, the campus would be able to determine its own system of position classifications rather than being tied to those established in Raleigh. Administrators here say the state's classifications can be too rigid as to who qualifies for certain positions by stressing qualifications such as education level rather than experience.
Litowsky likened having to go through the state to get a job reclassified to "stubbing a toe."
"We have an opportunity to take those rocks out of our way," he said.
Litowsky said the purpose of creating a new personnel system would be to make it better than the current version. Given the competitive job market in this area, he said, "to create a system that would be worse would just be stupid."
The idea of having less-rigid position classifications struck a chord with several employees attending the meeting.
An employee who works in a research department said she found it frustrating when employees at the top end of their salary range couldn't be rewarded monetarily without being reclassified, an undertaking often thwarted by state requirements.
Another employee suggested that the campus start over with a new position-classification structure. Rather than have multiple grades for computer consultants, for instance, simply have one. That way, she said, there would be plenty of room on the salary range to place employees with different levels of skills and experience, as well as fewer obstacles to moving up the range because employees wouldn't have to be reclassified to do so.
One employee said the campus should identify problems with the current system and see if perhaps it can be fixed before committing to a new system.
Identifying those problems will be a part of the process, he was told, and creating a new system would not necessarily mean scrapping all of the old one.
"There may be components of the current system that we'll continue to have," Smith said.
Several employees said any new system should have safeguards preventing lesser-paid employees losing out at the expense of those making more money. Others said pains will need to be taken to assure management accountability so that managers do not treat some employees better than others for personal reasons.
Other suggestions raised by employees included:
* Having new employees earn vacation at a rate of eight hours per month rather than at seven hours and 50 minutes.
* Allowing employees to donate sick leave for shared leave as well as vacation time.
* Recognizing managers for the technical work they do as well as the administrative.
* Giving lump-sum rather than percentage pay raises to keep a check on the salary gap between lower- and higher-paid employees.
* Offering more career counseling to employees and more managerial training to new supervisors.
* Offering more part-time positions of 30 to 35 hours per week.
* Placing more emphasis on promoting from within the campus.
The Personnel Flexibility Committee has a second sub-committee reviewing personnel systems around the country to see if they might offer any lessons to be learned here.
The full panel's work comes with a backdrop of an N.C. General Assembly committee that is studying whether to grant additional flexibility to UNC system schools in the areas of personnel, property and purchasing.
The Carolina panel plans to submit to Chancellor James Moeser recommendations about the general qualities that a campus-designed personnel system should have if it's given the freedom to create one. The Office of Human Resources will then develop specific proposals based on what the chancellor adopts, and these will be forwarded to the legislative study committee in time for it to see them before reporting to the 2003 session of the General Assembly.
Ideas welcome
Employees across campus are welcome to share their ideas about what a Carolina-designed personnel system should look like by e-mailing them to Wanda Smith, chair of the Personnel Flexibility Committee's Input Subcommittee, at wjsmith@med.unc.edu
TABLE OF CONTENTS |
FRONT PAGE
| NEXT ARTICLE |
PREVIOUS ARTICLE |
UNC HOMEPAGE