InTouch:  UNC Employee Forum News
Volume 8, Number 1 January 2007

Address to Board of Trustees, November 15, 2006
UNC Eyes Using Time Clocks for Staff Employees
"Fear of Frying?" Survey Results

Commmittee to Study Workplace Wellness Needs, Opportunities

Call for Nominations: 2007 University Awards for the Advancement of Women

Delegate Rosters

From the Chair, Ernie Patterson ...

 Address to Board of Trustees, November 15, 2006

Thank you for the opportunity to speak with the Board of Trustees.  The Employee Forum appreciates the opportunity this provides staff to inform the Board of Trustees about issues and concerns.

Recent events have highlighted the need to re-build the covenant of co-governance that has served our University well since the formation of the Forum under Chancellor Hardin.

The upcoming decisions that have to be made in light of Erskine Bowles’ PACE (President's Advisory Committee on Efficiency and Effectiveness) study provide the administration with a chance to re-affirm the covenant.  We must work together to assure that changes positively impact and support our core mission of education, service and research.

We have a choice about how to initiate and implement change within the University. We can make changes that maintain the system at its current level of performance by solving specific problems or just reacting to special circumstances.       Or….

We can make changes designed to improve the system beyond historical levels. These changes would require us to consider strategies that call for the design or redesign of systems, fundamentally altering how each system works and what people do.  Changes at this level will have an impact far into the future.

We need to solicit, develop and implement innovative, cost-effective strategies that can both address the underlying causes of problems and improve workplace efficiencies in general, rather than latching onto and implementing stopgap strategies that simply treat the symptoms of problems.  We must act boldly by not limiting ourselves to current resource constraints and ways of thinking about problems.  We must be on the cutting edge of technological and organizational innovations that result in systemic changes and sustainable improvement.

If we choose to pursue higher yield change strategies, we must expect and value critical and creative thinking from everyone.  One sure way to discover the innovative solutions that will carry us into the more efficient and effective future envisioned by the PACE study is through the involvement of everyone at the University.  Staff employees, who do the daily, hands-on work of the University and know its systems and problems in very practical ways, should be used as a wellspring of information and ideas.  This means that we need to establish structures and policies that will support encourage and value the contributions of all employees.  

One of the most important of those structures and policies involves communication.  We must understand that, when given a choice between two approaches to change, one of which they understand and the other of which is new or innovative, most people will prefer what they know. This is even more likely in the absence of open and honest communication with all employees.  Employees deserve information!  They need accurate, up-front information about the costs of the present systems, about the impact of those costs on University priorities, and about the reforms and modifications that need to be considered to improve our bottom line. 

Adoption of this strategy would position UNC as a leader in collaborative enterprise -- engaging all UNC employees in identifying and implementing solutions to existing and future problems at UNC, whether or not addressed by PACE.

Finally, we must remember that PACE is not a Bible that we should follow absolutely and unyieldingly.  It represents a guideline for change to improve University operations so that we remain competitive in today’s academic marketplace.

I want to assure you that the Forum and the more than 7500 employees it represents is ready and willing to step up and work with our administration to make UNC the best it can be.

UNC Eyes Using Time Clocks for Staff Employees

Administrators at UNC-Chapel Hill will soon decide on a method for employees to use to electronically record their work hours.  They will choose between simply automating how employees now report their hours or requiring employees to “clock in” electronically each day, which will build greater accountability into the timekeeping system. 

Last spring, the University purchased a new time and attendance system called Kronos that is designed to electronically collect timesheet data and feed it directly into the University’s payroll and benefits systems, thus reducing paper usage and manual data entry time.  With Kronos, employees will electronically record their daily work hours and the program will automatically calculate their work time to the nearest tenth of an hour, as well as their personal and sick leave balances.  Employees and supervisors could obtain this information on demand.

The University must still decide which of two methods employees will be required to use to record their hours.   

The first approach, “Time Capture,” requires punching in and out each day using a computerized time clock or a computer at a work station.  In some cases, employees could use a telephone to clock in, although current plans call for only five telephone lines to serve the entire campus, which means permission to use this method will be limited.  The Time Capture method will allow supervisors to enter their employees’ start and stop times manually and to edit their timesheets, but employees would not enjoy this privilege.    

The second time recording approach, “Time Entry,” essentially computerizes the current paper-based time reporting system.  This approach would allow employees (as well as their supervisors) to enter and edit their time records manually. 

Current plans are to require the Time Capture method for all temporary and student employees.  Because “exempt” employees (exempt from the State Personnel Act) have different time reporting requirements, they will use the Time Entry method.  This means that all faculty and administrators and a small portion of regular staff will record their hours in the same manner as before, only via computer.    

The University must still decide the method that the majority of the University’s staff employees, who are non-exempt, will use to record their hours.

Some managers and administrators favor the Time Capture method of data entry, because it gives managers up-to-the-moment information on the presence or absence of hourly employees and greater control over weekly work totals, thus reducing overtime and comp time expenses. Its ability to render precise time measurements and command a higher level of accountability from hourly employees is also a valued feature.   

Other managers have pointed out that SPA employees are a very large group of people with quite varied job duties, some of which may not lend themselves easily to the Time Capture method.  In addition, they have noted, if the Time Capture method is selected as the University standard for work time reporting, it is not likely to be well accepted among staff employees, many of whom operate on a trust standard when recording their hours.  Accordingly, morale may suffer. 

If the Time Capture option is adopted, individual departments would have the opportunity to make a formal application to use the Time Entry method, if they choose.   

The final decision about which method staff employees will use will be made in mid- to late-January 2007 by Vice Chancellor for Information Technology Services Dan Reed, Vice Chancellor for Finance Richard Mann, and the Associate Vice Chancellor for Human Resources.  These positions, who “own” the system and will administer its application, will base their decision on the recommendation of the Time and Attendance project’s Core Team.  The Team is seeking input from University managers as it formulates its recommendations, but has declined an offer of assistance in soliciting input from the wider University community.

"Fear of Frying?" The Survey Results

Many departments and divisions at UNC are staffed from the top, down with decent human beings who do high-quality work, treat both their superiors and their subordinates with respect, and never do anything that could bring shame or potential legal trouble to the University. Some, however, are not.  

When employee mistreatment, questionable management practices, or outright wrongdoing occur, witnesses to (or victims of) these events may feel that although they would like to see the situation corrected, they don't know where to turn...or are afraid to turn there.

Two months ago, the InTouch newsletter asked employees to share their thoughts on and any experiences with reporting problems at UNC.  The resulting survey is not scientific; it is not a random, unbiased sample of UNC staff employees.  Rather, it reflects the attitudes and experiences of a self-selected sample of 56 people who were sufficiently motivated to respond.  These are the results. 

---------------------------

Nearly two-thirds of the respondents to the “Fear of Frying” survey (62.5%) said that they thought UNC employees are “very reluctant” or “scared to death” to report problems or wrongdoing. 

Nevertheless, many of them (42.9%) said that this should not be the case—largely on philosophical grounds.  Most felt that it is our individual right as employees to report problems, and also that it is the institutional tradition at UNC to respect free speech and uphold fairness in the workplace.  Honest employees, they said, should expect both co-workers and supervisors to live up to high standards of honesty, and reporting problems should not be frightening because most managers at UNC, like most employees, want our workplace to be great. 

More than half of the respondents (57.1%), however, said that employees are probably right to be afraid to report problems because it is so easy for supervisors to retaliate in subtle ways, such as making the whistleblower’s work life miserable, sabotaging his or her later career advancement, or arranging to have the individual’s position be eliminated due to “budget cuts.”  Respondents who recommended caution pointed out that in some cases anonymity or confidentiality are impossible because the nature of the problem being reported makes the identity of the whistleblower obvious. 

Another reason not to report a problem, they said, is because in the end, nothing will really be done about it anyway.  “Nothing will change in the unit,” wrote one respondent, “because managers are rarely held accountable.” 

“The University needs to take a look at some of the managers that are in the positions they are,” advised one respondent. “Many managers get away with things that the ordinary employees would never dream about. It's because of the positions they are in.  Departmental chairs don't want to be bothered with [the day-in and day-out] departmental things and many managers take full advantage of this. Managers come and go as they please because for them, there is no one to report to. They take vacation and sick days without having to report the time taken as other employees do, because the department chairs don't keep up with things like this.”

Some survey respondents (39.3%) were speaking from personal experience in having reported workplace problems, but most (60.7%) had never done so. 

Not ever having been a whistleblower tended to make respondents somewhat more likely to recommend that course of action, but on the whole there was a surprising amount of agreement between those with firsthand experience in reporting problems and those without.  Coming forward to report problems, their answers suggest, is important to do, even if it may be a bit risky. 

Being a Whistleblower

Employees who have reported workplace problems at UNC have used a combination of all of the resources that are available to State employees for this purpose—and creatively called upon a variety of others.  The Ombuds Office has been a resource for more than half of those who have been whistleblowers.  Another important avenue for addressing workplace problems has been UNC’s Human Resources department, which was cited in half of the responses given in the “other” category. 

Despite fears that are sometimes expressed about how confidential or anonymous problem reports will really be, most whistleblowers (75%) indicated that they were satisfied with the level of confidentiality they had received when using the reporting resources they had accessed.  They were noticeably less satisfied, however, with how the problem they had brought up was ultimately handled (only 45% satisfaction).  And in the long run, more than half (52.4%) felt that they did in fact experience negative repercussions from their actions.  These ranged from being reprimanded for filing their report to being ostracized by supervisors and co-workers. 

Being Reluctant

              Quite a few respondents (61.8%) indicated that while they had thought about reporting a workplace problem or wrongdoing at one time or another in the past, they had not followed through.  In some cases it was because the individual did not know what kinds of resources were available to help them make a report.  In other cases, it was because of the “fear of frying”—sometimes based on previous personal experience with bringing a complaint.  One consideration that affected a number of respondents’ decisions was a conviction that nothing constructive would really be done as a result of making a report, so there was not much point in doing so. 

Final Thoughts

              The information provided by this informal survey needs to be improved upon by a more formal, properly designed study of employee use of and satisfaction with the problem-reporting mechanisms that exist at UNC.  Until that happens, our results here suggest that while employees at UNC may be understandably reluctant to report workplace problems, they do not always refuse to do so, and the results of doing so are not uniformly negative for them. 

“Keep your cool,” advised one respondent, but if you’re having problems or know of situations that need to be exposed, “don’t put up with it…. [Departments at UNC may] vary on fairness, but I truly have seen significant advancement in communications and professionalism in the past 20 years.” 

“I do not have a problem with reporting issues,” said one respondent, “because I was taught to do so in an assertive, evidenced-based way and to prepare my issue in such a way that inappropriate response was minimized or eliminated.... There are well known processes that workers can learn in order to have a ‘voice.’" 

But deciding to report problems does carry its risks.  A couple of respondents indicated that they had seen others who were whistleblowers wind up losing their jobs in short order.  One person reflected, “Most of my co-workers are scared to death of administration in [my area], so they won't report wrongdoing.  There are a lot of long-time workers here who would be in dire straights without a job. We have seen ‘whistle-blowers’ lose their jobs here before. Three people were ‘laid off’ because of ‘budget constraints’…yet their positions were posted and filled within one month of this supposed ‘layoff.’ These three people were also very vocal about administrative issues.” 

As bad as such situations sound, it is worth remembering that there are at least two sides to every story.  Our survey did not attempt to address questions about the severity or the legitimacy of the problems that people report.  As one respondent notes, the assumption here has been that whistleblowers are reporting genuine problems and deserve protection, without exception.  In fact, says the respondent, “In my experience well over half of the time people who are reporting alleged problems are really employees whose performance is bad, and they are trying to protect themselves from facing the consequences of their own inadequacies. These people suck up a lot of time and energy from management and debase the REAL whistleblowers, who often display lots of courage in reporting problems.” 

In a similar vein, the reasons people fail to report problems may also have as much to do with themselves as with inequities in the system and the perceived dangers involved in reporting.  “Sometimes, people don't report problems,” observed one person, “because they would rather gripe and grouse than actually do something to solve the issue.” 

In the end, the decision whether to report or to keep quiet about a workplace problem is a very personal decision and must be based on a number of important considerations.  “My advice,” said one respondent, “is to talk to the Ombuds Office, be a good employee, and do what you have to do to have peace of mind:  Report or don't report. Think hard, and try not to make the wrong decision.”

 Committee to study worksite wellness needs, opportunities

The Chancellor’s Task Force for a Better Workplace identified worksite wellness as a priority for improving the health and well-being of University employees.

In response to the task force recommendations and current workplace trends, a University Steering Committee for Worker Health, Safety and Wellness was convened last June to promote a coordinated and comprehensive worksite wellness program.

The purpose of the 16-member committee is to assess the health promotion needs, assets, interests and expectations of UNC employees. The committee will also assess the social and physical environment on campus, identify existing resources, services and supports currently in place, identify needs and gaps in programs/services, assess primary healthcare claims costs, and to learn from other peer institutions who have had success with worksite health and safety initiatives. The committee will develop a report for the provost with recommendations for worksite health and safety that are tailored to the unique work environment at Carolina.

Dr. Alice Ammerman, director of the Center for Health Promotion and Disease Prevention, chairs the steering committee. Members represent a variety of departments and units, including Campus Recreation, the Department of Environment, Health and Safety, the School of Public Health, Human Resources, the Department of Exercise and Sports Science, Employee Occupational Health and Auxiliary Services. Others are from the Faculty Athletic Committee, the Employee Forum, Faculty Council, Facilities Planning, the Department of Environmental Sciences and Engineering, University Relations and Active Living by Design.

As part of this assessment effort, the committee is interested in hearing from campus employees (both staff and faculty) regarding their thoughts and opinions on worksite wellness at UNC-Chapel Hill. A series of focus groups will be held with employees who have a wide range of job responsibilities and work schedules will be invited to participate.  The focus groups will be held in January and February, and while space is limited, all interested employees are invited to contact Ben Birken, Steering Committee Coordinator, at birken@email.unc.edu or 966-6085. 

Call for Nominations: 2007 University Awards for the Advancement of Women

On behalf of the Offices of the Chancellor and the Executive Vice Chancellor and Provost, the Carolina Women’s Center is pleased to announce the call for nominations for the 2007 University Awards for the Advancement of Women.  This award recognizes contributions to the advancement of women at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Each year, three individuals—one faculty member, one staff person, and one undergraduate/graduate student/postdoctoral scholar—may be selected to receive the award. The faculty and staff recipients each receive $5000 and the undergraduate/

graduate student/ postdoctoral scholar recipient receives $2500.  Awardees are honored in an award celebration during the Carolina Women’s Center’s annual Women’s Week Celebration.

Please submit nominations for women and men who have contributed in one or more of the following ways:

• Mentored and supported women students, staff, faculty, and/or administrators;
• Elevated the status of women on campus;
• Helped to improve campus policies affecting women;
• Promoted and advanced the recruitment, retention, and upward mobility of women;
• Participated in and assisted in the establishment of professional development opportunities for women; or
• Participated in and assisted in the establishment of academic mentoring for women.

To submit a nomination, please use the online form at:

http://ir.unc.edu/women/women_nomination.html

All faculty and staff nominees must be permanent employees. 

The deadline for nominations is February 26, 2007 at 5:00 p.m. 

Please contact Dr. Donna M. Bickford, Director of the Carolina Women’s Center at dbickford@unc.edu or (919) 962-8305 if you have questions about the awards or nomination process.

 ***The link to the nomination form is also available on the Provost’s website at www.unc.edu/provost and the Carolina Women’s Center website at womenscenter.unc.edu.

Return to the Employee Forum Home Page
Contact a Forum Delegate via our on-line roster
Return to Top